Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search ❯
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    Case LawsGST
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Case LawsGST
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Case LawsGST
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Case LawsGST
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Case LawsGST
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❮
❯
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Comparison of section 351 "Specified violation." 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

      Print Options

      Section 351 Specified violation.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These texts set out Clause/Section 351 dealing with "specified violation" by a registered non-profit organisation under the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) and the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025. They matter because they prescribe grounds and procedure for cancellation of registration of non-profit organisations and thus affect taxpayers (registered non-profit entities), tax administration (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and Assessing Officers), and the broader charitable sector. Effective/commencement dates: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 351 appears in Part IV (Violations) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 / Income-tax Act, 2025. The provision addresses "specified violation" by a registered non-profit organisation and grants the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner power to inquire, call for documents, and pass orders including cancellation of registration. Definitions or extended explanations of terms used (e.g., "registered non-profit organisation", "objects", "commercial activity", or cross-referenced sections 332, 345, 346, 270(13)) are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision enumerates specified violations by a registered non-profit organisation, namely:

      • application of income otherwise than for its objects;
      • carrying out commercial activity in contravention of section 345 or 346 (enacted) / section 345 (Bill);
      • application of any part of total income for private religious purposes which does ensure/enure for the benefit of the public;
      • post-commencement organisations for charitable purpose applying income for benefit of particular religious community or caste other than SCs/STs or backward classes or women and children;
      • activities that are not genuine or not carried out in accordance with registration conditions;
      • non-compliance with requirements of other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a) and where the order/direction/decree is either undisputed or final;
      • false or incorrect information in the application referred to in section 332(1).

      Procedure: Where the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has noticed one or more specified violations, receives a reference from the Assessing Officer u/s 270(13), or the organisation is selected per Board-formulated risk strategy, the officer shall call for documents/inquiries, and then pass an order in writing either cancelling registration (after reasonable opportunity of being heard) for such tax year and subsequent years if satisfied violation occurred, or not cancelling if not so satisfied; copy to AO and organisation. Timeline: order to be passed within six months calculated from end of quarter in which first notice was issued calling for documents/inquiry.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by text: the provision aims to create a statutory mechanism to protect the tax base by identifying specified breaches by non-profit organisations and providing a structured administrative route for cancellation of registration, incorporating procedural safeguards (opportunity of being heard, timelines). The text signals an intent to link tax-registration consequences to both internal misapplication of funds and external non-compliance with other laws.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs or conditions in the text include:

      • Cancellation is to be preceded by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
      • Non-compliance under other laws is actionable only where the order/direction/decree "has either not been disputed, or has attained finality" (enacted text).
      • Specific temporal limitation on decision-making: order must be passed within six months from quarter-end of first notice.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered non-profit uses grants to pay director's personal expenses - this falls under clause (a) (application other than for objects) and can trigger inquiry and potential cancellation if established. (Facts consistent with text.)
      • Example 2: A post-commencement charitable organisation awards scholarships exclusively to a single non-protected religious community (not SC/ST/backward classes/women/children) - under clause (d) this could be a specified violation. (Facts consistent with text.)
      • Example 3: A registered non-profit running a business arm in contravention of section 346 (enacted) would fall under clause (b) and could be subject to cancellation proceedings. (Facts consistent with text.)

      Interplay

      The provision cross-refers to sections 345, 346, 332(7)/(7)(a), 332(1), and 270(13). Specific interaction with Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document. The provision situates administrative power with Principal Commissioner/Commissioner while involving Assessing Officer by reference and communication; how this aligns with broader registration/renewal procedures or appeal remedies is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to section 345/346 (commercial activity): Old Bill (Document 2) lists contravention only of section 345; the enacted Section 351 (Document 1) lists contravention of the provisions of section 345 or 346.
        • Practical impact: expansion of trigger-more commercial-activity-related conduct (covered in section 346) can now constitute a specified violation, increasing exposure to cancellation for NGOs engaged in commercial activities that fall within section 346.
      • Wording on timing/temporal scope of cancellation: Old Bill states cancellation may be "for such tax year during which such specified violation took place and all subsequent tax years." Enacted Section omits the phrase "for such tax year during which such specified violation took place," instead providing cancellation "for such tax year and all subsequent tax years."
        • Practical impact: enacted text is arguably broader or at least less temporally precise; it appears to allow cancellation beginning with the relevant tax year (same as Bill) but the slight drafting change reduces explicit limitation language-practically similar but drafting difference could affect interpretation of retrospective/prospective reach if disputes arise.
      • Reference to compliance with other laws (section 332(7)): Old Bill refers to "requirements u/s 332(7)"; enacted Section refers to "requirements of any other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a) and the order, direction or decree... has either not been disputed, or has attained finality."
        • Practical impact: enacted provision clarifies that the non-compliance is with "any other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a)" (narrower/clarified cross-reference) and adds explicit textual emphasis that the order/direction/decree must either be undisputed or final. This makes the ground for cancellation contingent on a final/undisputed determination under those other laws.
      • Typographical/word choice correction: Enacted Section corrects "enure" to "ensure" (via corrigenda).
        • Practical impact: corrects potential ambiguity in clause (c) regarding private religious purposes "which does ensure for the benefit of the public" (document shows correction but intended meaning remains that such private religious application must not ensure public benefit). Substance unaffected except removal of typographical error.
      • Minor drafting/formatting differences: Enacted provision adds subparagraph labeling and slightly reorders phrasing (e.g., subsection (2)(a) temporal phrase "Where,--" vs Bill's "Where during any tax year,--").
        • Practical impact: no substantive change except possible differences in interpretive emphasis on temporal locus of detection; enacted text's condition list in (2) is substantively the same but more tightly cross-referenced in some places.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: strict internal compliance with objects and permitted uses of income; careful structuring of any commercial activities to avoid contravention of sections 345/346; avoidance of private-religious-purpose applications that do not benefit the public; adherence to registration conditions; ensure accuracy of initial registration application (section 332(1)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: documentary evidence of application of income to objects, minutes/authorisations for activities, contracts and accounts for commercial activities, demonstration of public benefit for religious activities, evidence of compliance with other laws (and any orders/directions) and dispute status thereof, and documentation submitted in registration application-since false/incorrect application information is a specified violation.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause/Section 351 lists seven discrete grounds that may constitute a "specified violation" leading to cancellation of registration of a registered non-profit organisation.
      • Enacted text expands commercial-activity trigger to include contravention of section 346 in addition to section 345, broadening potential exposure.
      • Cancellation can be ordered by Principal Commissioner/Commissioner after inquiry and hearing, and must be communicated to the Assessing Officer and organisation.
      • Non-compliance under other laws is actionable where the external order/direction/decree is undisputed or final, per enacted text.
      • Administrative timeline: order must be passed within six months from the quarter-end of the first notice calling for documents/inquiry.
      • Accuracy of registration application is critical-false or incorrect information is an explicit ground for specified violation.
      • Certain drafting differences between Bill and Act (e.g., reference to section 346 and clarified cross-reference to section 332(7)(a)) may have practical consequences for scope and enforcement.

      Full Text:

      Section 351 Specified violation.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔