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 341 "Application of income." 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 341 Application of income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        Clause 341 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out what constitutes permissible application of income by registered non-profit organisations. It matters to charitable/religious trusts and registered non-profit organisations, and to tax authorities monitoring compliance with application-of-income conditions. Effective date/decision date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hook: Clause 341 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) addressing "Application of income" of a registered non-profit organisation. Context: governs what sums may be treated as application of income for non-profit organisations to ascertain compliance with conditions for tax treatment. Coverage: sums applied for charitable/religious purposes in India, donations to other registered non-profits, corpus donations, reinvestment of corpus in permitted modes u/s 350, repayment of loans/borrowings, and exclusions. Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document beyond references to sections 35(b)(i), 36(4)-(7), and section 350.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Clause 341, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out what sums are to be allowed as "application of income" to a registered non-profit organisation. The provision identifies three categories in sub-section (1): (a) sums applied for charitable or religious purposes in India for which the organisation is registered (subject to payment during the tax year and allowability under specified sections), (b) 85% of donations made to other registered non-profit organisations, and (c) nil with respect to corpus donations to other registered non-profit organisations. Sub-section (2) includes reinvestments into permitted corpus modes and repayments of loans/borrowings within five years (subject to conditions including no prior violation and application post 31 March 2021) as application of income. Sub-section (3) excludes from application: depreciation/allowances claimed in respect of an asset acquisition already treated as application of income and set off/allowance of excess application from prior years. Sub-section (4) states that application from corpus, loan/borrowing, accumulated income, specified income or deemed accumulated income shall not be considered as application for the purpose of sub-sections (1) and (2).

        Interpretation

        The text links the concept of "application of income" to both timing (payment during the tax year) and substantive allowability u/ss 36(4)-(7) and 35(b)(i). Legislative intent apparent from the text is to restrict qualifying applications to sums that are both paid and allowable under income tax rules, and to avoid treating corpus transfers as qualifying applications. The Bill articulates a cross-reference approach whereby existing tax-law tests (sections 35 and 36 provisions) determine allowability. The inclusion of a prescribed percentage treatment for donations to other registered organisations (85%) indicates a legislative policy to permit a substantial portion of inter-charity donations to count as application while retaining a residual disallowance (15%).

        Exceptions/Provisos

        Explicit exceptions in the Bill text: corpus donations to other registered non-profit organisations are treated as nil for application purposes. Sub-section (3) excludes depreciation/allowances already claimed and set off of earlier excess applications. Sub-section (4) excludes application from corpus, loan/borrowing, accumulated income, specified income or deemed accumulated income for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2). There are conditional provisos in sub-section (2) requiring reinvestment or repayment within five years and that the original application from corpus or loan/borrowing be post-31 March 2021 and compliant with the Part.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1 - Direct application: A registered trust pays Rs. 1,000,000 during the tax year for a charitable program for which it is registered, and the payment is allowable u/ss 36(4)-(7) and 35(b)(i). That sum would qualify as application of income under sub-section (1)(a).
        • Example 2 - Donation to another registered organisation: A registered society donates Rs. 100,000 to another registered society. Under sub-section (1)(b), 85% (i.e. Rs. 85,000) would count as application of income; under sub-section (1)(c) corpus components would count as nil if the payment is a corpus donation.
        • Example 3 - Reinvestment from corpus: Not stated in the document whether a trust that re-invests corpus within five years will satisfy other procedural prerequisites beyond those listed; the Bill requires reinvestment within five years and that the original corpus application be after 31-03-2021 with no violations. Specific permitted modes are referred to section 350 (modes) but details of those modes are Not stated in the document.

        Interplay

        The clause expressly refers to and depends upon sections 35(b)(i), 36(4)-(7) and section 350 for determining allowable payments and permitted modes of investment. It also cross-refers to "this Part" and corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for compliance history. Specific rules, notifications or circulars beyond these textual cross-references are Not stated in the document.

        Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

        • Explicit treatment of corpus donations paid to other organisations:

          • Bill (Clause 341, Document 2): sub-clause (1)(c) expressly states "nil, with respect to any sum paid as a corpus donation to any other registered non-profit organisation."
          • Act (Section 341, Document 1): sub-section (3)(c) provides that "any sum paid as a corpus donation to any other registered non-profit organisation" shall not be allowed as application of income (i.e., it is listed among claims not allowed).
          Practical impact: Both texts in effect disallow treating corpus donations to other registered entities as application of income, but the Bill states the position as a component of what is allowed (explicitly allowing "nil"), while the Act lists it among exclusions. Substance is similar; the Bill's expression is potentially clearer as a standalone rule, whereas the Act's placement in exclusions may be read as reinforcing general illegibility for application treatment.
        • Order and wording of paid sums qualifying as application:

          • Bill (Document 2): sub-section (1)(a) requires the sum be "paid during such tax year" and "such payment is allowable u/ss 36(4), (5), (6) and (7) and 35(b)(i)."
          • Act (Document 1): sub-section (1)(a) provides similar requirements but phrases them as "where such sum is paid during the tax year provided that the provisions of section 35(b)(i) and section 36(4), (5), (6), and (7) shall apply in respect of such sum."
          Practical impact: No substantive difference in the qualifying conditions; the Act's language places emphasis on the applicability of the identified sections, while the Bill is more prescriptive that payment during the year and allowability under those sections are required. Both link allowability u/ss 35/36 to qualification as application.
        • Deemed application (85% rule and deemed application mechanics):

          • Bill (Document 2): does not contain provisions comparable to Section 341(5)-(8) of the Act concerning the 85% of regular income requirement, shortfall treatment as deemed application, timing for application of deemed application, and exercise of option.
          • Act (Document 1): contains sub-sections (5)-(8) establishing an 85% regular income normative target, permitting registered organisations to elect to treat shortfall as deemed application, specifying timing rules for application, and prescribing exercise of option on or before the due date u/s 263(1) for furnishing return of income.
          Practical impact: The Act introduces a compliance mechanism (85% of regular income) and a deemed application regime with procedural timings. The Bill version lacks this constructive mechanism; therefore, under the Bill an organisation's failure to apply regular income to the extent of 85% would not be remedied by deeming (unless other provisions exist elsewhere). The Act increases formal compliance burdens and provides a remedy (option) to treat shortfall as application within specific timelines; omission from the Bill means those procedural obligations/benefits are not present in the Bill text as reproduced.
        • Capital gains treated as application:

          • Bill (Document 2): contains no counterpart to the Act's sub-sections (9) and (10) dealing with capital gains from transfer of capital assets held for charitable or religious purposes and definitions such as "appropriate fraction," "cost of transferred asset," and "net consideration."
          • Act (Document 1): specifies when capital gains on transfers of trust property are deemed application (full or fractional amounts) and provides definitions for key terms used in that analysis.
          Practical impact: The Act creates a clear statutory rule treating certain capital gains as application of income when proceeds are reinvested in qualifying capital assets; the Bill lacks such rules, leaving potential ambiguity regarding tax treatment of capital gains arising to trusts. The Act's rules may aid in tax neutrality for reinvestment of trust assets; absent that, the Bill would leave organisations reliant on other provisions or administrative guidance.
        • Express exclusions and structuring differences:

          • Bill (Document 2): The exclusions list in sub-section (3) comprises clauses (a) and (b) (depreciation/allowance previously claimed as application; set off of excess application), but does not include clause (c) of the Act (which there is included in Act sub-section (3)(c)).
          • Act (Document 1): explicitly includes three exclusions (a), (b), (c) in sub-section (3), making the treatment of corpus donations as excluded clearer within the exclusions list.
          Practical impact: The Act's exclusions list is more exhaustive. The Bill's omission (as presented) could cause interpretive uncertainty until clarified by other provisions or parliamentary amendments.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: The requirement that payments be "paid during such tax year" and be allowable under the cross-referenced sections imposes evidentiary and timing burdens on registered non-profit organisations to substantiate payments and their tax allowability. The 85% rule for donations to other registered entities creates a mathematical step for accounting and tax reporting; organisations must track whether payments are corpus or non-corpus to determine whether 85% or nil applies.
        • Record-keeping/evidence: Organisations will need contemporaneous payment evidence (ledgers, bank payment instruments), documentation demonstrating allowability u/ss 35/36, clear characterisation of donations as corpus or revenue, and records of repayments or reinvestments into permitted modes (section 350) within five-year periods where applicable. The Bill's five-year windows and post-31-03-2021 condition require maintenance of historical compliance records showing no violations.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 341 defines what counts as application of income for registered non-profit organisations, linking allowability to sections 35 and 36 and to timing of payment.
        • Donations to other registered organisations are partly recognised (85%) except corpus donations which are expressly treated as nil.
        • Reinvestment into permitted corpus modes and repayment of loans may be treated as application if made within five years and subject to compliance conditions and post-31-03-2021 applicability.
        • Certain claims (depreciation/allowances already claimed as application; set off of earlier excess application) are excluded from being treated as application.
        • The clause depends on other provisions (sections 35, 36 and 350) for definitions and modalities; practical compliance requires careful recordkeeping.
        • Compared with the enacted Section 341, the Bill (old version) omits the deemed-application (85% regular income) mechanism and capital-gains-deemed-application rules present in the Act.

        Full Text:

        Section 341 Application of income

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax