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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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 332 "Application for registration." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      11 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 332 Application for registration

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 332 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) "Application for registration" for registered non-profit organisations. It sets out who may apply, eligibility conditions, time-limits and procedural steps for grant, rejection or cancellation of registration. It matters to non-profit entities seeking tax-status benefits and to tax administration (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner). Effective dates or commencement details: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 332, Part B (Special provisions for registered non-profit organisation), I-Registration. The provision prescribes which entities may apply for registration to claim benefits under the Part, the eligibility conditions, procedural timelines for application and decision, and consequences of delay. Definitions for terms used in the Clause (e.g., "charitable purposes" referencing section 2(23)) are limited to reference; the Clause relies on other statutory definitions. Any broader legislative context or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Clause applies to specified categories of persons who may apply for registration to claim benefits as a "registered non-profit organisation": (a) public trusts; (b) societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any law in India; (c) companies registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 or companies previously registered u/s 25 of the 1956 Act and deemed registered u/s 465(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013; (d) universities or other educational institutions affiliated or recognised by Government; (e) institutions financed wholly or partly by Government or a local authority; (f) persons listed in specified entries of Schedules III and VII; and (g) other persons notified by the Board.

      Eligibility ingredients (sub-section (2)): (a) constitution/registration/incorporation in India for carrying out one or more charitable purposes as referred to in section 2(23) or one or more public religious purposes, or both; and (b) properties held under an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the general public - either wholly for charitable or religious purposes, or partly for such purposes in India if constituted prior to commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      Interpretation

      The Clause frames eligibility by reference to existing statutory definitions (section 2(23)) rather than redefining charitable or religious purposes, indicating reliance on established interpretive tests under the Act. The requirement that properties be "held under an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the general public" is a substantive condition: the trust character and public-benefit orientation are explicit statutory prerequisites. The decision-making role is vested in the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, who must make enquiries and call for documents to assess "genuineness of activities" and compliance with other laws "material for the purpose of achieving its objects." Legislative intent beyond these textually expressed aims: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The Clause contains temporal and conditional permutations in the Table (sub-section (3)) governing when applications must be made, and the period of validity if registration is granted. Notable exceptions/conditions: provisional registration is available where activities have not commenced (Table Sl. No. 1). Sub-section (4) permits condonation of delay by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner for reasonable cause. Sub-section (5) substitutes a longer validity (ten years instead of five) for certain lower-income applicants (income not exceeding Rs. 5 crore in each of two preceding tax years). Liability for tax on accreted income u/s 352 applies where certain late applications are not condoned (sub-section (6)). Specific provisos limiting scope of object modifications (see Table Sl. No. 7) are not present in the Old Version beyond the requirement to notify within 30 days; further nuance: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Newly formed society formed in April seeking registration for tax year starting 1 April: it may apply "at any time during the tax year beginning from which registration is sought"; where activities have not commenced and provisional registration is sought, the Commissioner must decide within three months from end of month of application (Table Sl. No.1).
      • An established trust whose activities have commenced and which has never been registered may apply during the relevant tax year; the Commissioner has six months from end of the quarter in which application is made to pass order; registration, if granted, is valid for five tax years (Table Sl. No.2).
      • A registered non-profit that adopts a modification of objects must notify within 30 days of adoption; the Commissioner may, after enquiring, reject and cancel registration in such cases if not satisfied (Table Sl. No.7; sub-section (7)).

      Interplay

      The Clause expressly references section 2(23) (definition of charitable purposes), u/s 465(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013, and section 352 (tax on accreted income) - indicating interplay with substantive definitions and penalty provisions elsewhere. It also refers to "requirements of any other law as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects," signalling cross-compliance checks with other regulatory regimes. Specific cross-references to Rules, Notifications or Circulars beyond "as prescribed" for form and manner: Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Applicants must ensure constitutional documents and asset-holding arrangements evidence an irrevocable trust for public benefit; timely filing is crucial because delays can attract liability u/s 352 if not condoned. Entities altering objects must be alert to the 30-day notification requirement and risk cancellation if changes do not conform to registration conditions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Commissioner is empowered to call for documents and enquiries into genuineness and compliance; applicants should retain foundational documents (trust deed, registration/incorporation records, objects clause, proof of irrevocability of asset holding), evidence of activities, financial statements (income thresholds are relevant for extended validity), and records of communications with funding authorities if government-funded.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 332 prescribes categories of entities eligible to seek registration as non-profit organisations and ties benefits to structural and trust-based conditions.
      • Eligibility requires both charitable/religious objective(s) (per section 2(23)) and assets held under an irrevocable trust for public benefit; temporal limitations apply where assets are only partly for such purposes.
      • The statutory Table creates differentiated filing windows, decision timelines and validity periods depending on commencement of activities and prior registration status; provisional registration and renewal mechanics are provided.
      • Condonation of delayed filings is discretionary and taxable consequences (section 352) follow uncured delay for certain categories.
      • The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has broad fact-finding powers and may reject or cancel registration following a hearing if not satisfied about genuineness or legal compliance.
      • Lower-income applicants (<= Rs. 5 crore in each of two preceding years) may receive extended registration validity (ten years) in specified situations.
      • Form and manner of orders and applications are to be prescribed; specific rules or forms are not contained in the Clause itself.

      Differences between Section 332 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 332 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version

      • Sub-section (2)(a): Clause 332 (Old) expressly includes "or both" after charitable and public religious purposes; Section 332 (Act) omits "or both" (it states "for carrying out one or more charitable purposes ... or one or more public religious purposes").
        • Practical impact: potential interpretive clarity in the Bill (Old) that combined charitable and religious purposes qualify; the Act's omission may invite question but likely not change substantive eligibility where both purposes are present-however the omission reduces textual explicitness.
      • Sub-section (3) procedural reference: The Bill (Old) requires following sub-sections (6) and (7); the Act requires following "the procedure provided in this section."
        • Practical impact: the Act's language is broader and may encompass additional subsections (e.g., 4,5) explicitly; the Old Bill's cross-reference is narrower but functionally the procedure invoked appears to align with the same subsections involved in decision-making.
      • Table - Sl. No.1 decision timeline: Clause 332 (Old) sets time-limit for passing order as "Three months from the end of the month in which application is made"; Section 332 (Act) reduces this to "One month from the end of the month in which application is made."
        • Practical impact: the Act imposes a shorter decision timeline for provisional registration where activities have not commenced, increasing administrative speed and pressure on the tax authority; applicants benefit from quicker certainty.
      • Table - Sl. No.7 scope: Clause 332 (Old) applies to an applicant "being a registered non-profit organisation, has adopted or undertaken modification of its objects." The Act narrows this trigger to modifications "which do not conform to the conditions of registration."
        • Practical impact: the Act narrows the category subject to immediate application requirement to object changes that are non-conforming, reducing compliance burden/risk of cancellation for any object modification that remains within registration conditions.
      • Substantive sequencing in sub-section (7): The Old Bill frames the enquiry "as to the compliance of such requirements of any other law ... and the genuineness of activities" while the Act frames enquiries to satisfy about "genuineness of activities, and the compliance of such requirements ... as are material."
        • Practical impact: largely stylistic, but the Act emphasises genuineness first and limits the scope of other-law compliance to requirements material to achieving objects - potentially narrowing the inquiry's scope.
      • Form of orders: Clause 332 (Old) uses "as prescribed"; Section 332 (Act) uses "as may be prescribed."
        • Practical impact: nominal; no substantive change evident.

      Action Points

      • Entities planning to seek registration should verify that their objects fall within section 2(23) and/or public religious purposes, ensure assets are held under an irrevocable trust for public benefit, and prepare documentary evidence in advance.
      • Registered organisations contemplating modification of objects should assess whether changes "conform to the conditions of registration" (per the Act) to determine the 30-day filing obligation and risk of cancellation.
      • Smaller organisations (income <= Rs. 5 crore in each of the two preceding years) should document income history to avail potential ten-year validity in designated cases.
      • Monitor the prescribed forms and order formats when notified, and be prepared for enquiries from the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner.

      Full Text:

      Section 332 Application for registration

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax