Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

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

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 354 "Application for approval for purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii)." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

12 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 354 Application for approval for purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii).

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Clause 354 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version sets out the statutory scheme for applications by registered non-profit organisations or specified persons for approval u/s 133(1)(b)(ii) (approval relevant to receipt of donations). It matters to charitable organisations, donors and tax authorities because approval enables donor deduction treatment under the linked provision. The Bill sets eligibility conditions, timelines for application and orders, procedural safeguards and validity periods for approvals. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Clause 354 is drafted for the purpose of obtaining approval for application of section 133(1)(b)(ii) (as referenced in the heading). The provision governs who may apply (a registered non-profit organisation or a person referred to in Schedule III (Table: Sl. No. 1)), the conditions for eligibility, procedural stages for the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, timelines for applications and orders, and the period of validity of approvals. The text contains no defined terms other than references to "tax year," "registered non-profit organisation," and the referenced Schedule III; definitions of those terms are Not stated in the document. The Bill prescribes that forms, manner, statements, verifications, certificates to donors and correction statements shall be "prescribed" but the prescriptive instruments themselves are Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Coverage: Clause 354 permits a registered non-profit organisation or a person listed in Schedule III (Table: Sl. No. 1) to apply to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for approval for the purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii). The authority for application, the form and manner are to be as prescribed. The clause sets out seven express conditions (clauses (a) to (g)) that the applicant must satisfy or comply with:

  • (a) the organisation's activities are not expressed to benefit any particular religious community or caste;
  • (b) it is established in India for a charitable purpose and "does not incur any expenditure of an amount being 5% or more of its total income during a tax year which is of a religious nature";
  • (c) no instrument or rules allow transfer of whole or part of assets for any purpose other than a charitable purpose;
  • (d) it maintains regular accounts of receipts and expenditure;
  • (e) it prepares and delivers a prescribed statement for prescribed periods, in prescribed form and verified manner, within prescribed time, to the prescribed income-tax authority or an authorised person;
  • (f) it delivers correction statements for rectification or updating of the statement required under (e), in prescribed form and verified manner;
  • (g) it furnishes a certificate to the donor specifying the donation amount within a prescribed period from date of receipt, containing requisite particulars in the prescribed manner.

Timelines and validity: Sub-section (2) contains a five-row Table specifying application time limits, time for the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to pass orders, and the validity period of approval, distinguishing cases where activities have commenced, where activities have not commenced, provisional approvals, and expiry/renewal situations. The Table prescribes: provisional approvals for new applicants (three tax years), approvals for applicants with commenced activities (five tax years), and specific application windows and order timelines (one month for the month-end case; six months from end of quarter in other cases).

Interpretation

Legislative intent indicated by the text: The structure indicates an intent to balance facilitation of charitable funding (by providing a route to obtain approval relevant for donor deduction) with safeguards to ensure charitable character and compliance with other laws. The enumerated conditions focus on: non-discrimination by religion/caste; confinement of assets to charitable purposes; limits on religious expenditure; maintenance and submission of accurate accounts and statements; and donor-level certification. The procedural timeframe table suggests an intent to provide predictability in administrative processing. The text does not contain an express legislative statement of purpose or policy rationale beyond these provisions.

Exceptions/Provisos

No separate provisos or exceptions beyond the specified conditions and the Table are included in Clause 354. There are no express carve-outs for particular categories of organisations, acute exigencies, or definitions of "religious nature" expenditure. Any exceptions or further qualifying language is Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A registered non-profit which has not commenced activities applies during the tax year from which it seeks approval; the authority must pass an order within "One months from the end of the month in which application is made" and, if provisional approval is granted, the approval is valid for "Three tax years commencing from the tax year in which such application is made." (This example follows the Table text.)
  • Example 2: A registered non-profit whose activities have commenced applies at any time during the tax year from which approval is sought; the authority has six months from the end of the quarter in which application is made to pass an order; if approved the validity is five tax years commencing from that tax year. (Derived directly from the Table.)
  • Example 3: An organisation incurs religious-nature expenditure equal to 5% of total income in a tax year. Under clause (b) its status is affected because clause (b) provides it "does not incur any expenditure of an amount being 5% or more..."-therefore, an organisation with exactly 5% religious expenditure would be ineligible. (The document does not provide a worked example; this is a textual reading of clause (b).)

Interplay

The clause refers to section 133(1)(b)(ii) as the substantive hook for approval but does not reproduce that section or explain the precise consequence of approval under that section. The clause references compliance "of such requirements of any other law in force" but does not specify which laws or how conflicts are to be resolved. The clause requires prescribed forms, statements and donor certificates but the relevant Rules or Notifications prescribing them are Not stated in the document. Interaction with income-tax assessment procedures, charitable trust law, the applicable Schedules (Schedule III), or other regulatory regimes is not elaborated in the text.

Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

  • Reference to Schedule: Document 1 (Section 354, Income-tax Act, 2025) refers to "Schedule VII (Table: Sl. No. 1)"; Document 2 (Clause 354, Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) refers to "Schedule III (Table: Sl. No. 1)".
    • Practical impact: This change alters which classes of persons fall within the eligibility reference. The precise practical effect depends on the contents of the respective Schedules; those listed in Schedule III will differ from those in Schedule VII, so an entity's eligibility to apply may be expanded or narrowed depending on which Schedule applies. The document does not state the contents of either Schedule.
  • Religious-expenditure threshold wording: Document 1 states the applicant "does not incur any expenditure of an amount exceeding 5% of its total income during a tax year which is of a religious nature." Document 2 states the applicant "does not incur any expenditure of an amount being 5% or more of its total income during a tax year which is of a religious nature."
    • Practical impact: The two phrasings create different inclusive/exclusive thresholds. Document 1 prohibits expenditure that exceeds 5% (i.e., expenditure >5% is prohibited; expenditure equal to 5% appears permissible). Document 2 prohibits expenditure that is "5% or more" (i.e., expenditure >=5% is prohibited). This is a material drafting difference: under Document 2 an organisation whose religious-nature expenditure equals exactly 5% of total income would be ineligible; under Document 1 that organisation would appear eligible. The documents do not provide further clarifying definitions or examples.
  • Minor drafting differences in procedural wording: The order and phrasing in sub-section (3) differ slightly. Document 2 frames the inquiries as being "in order to satisfy himself as to the compliance of such requirements of any other law in force, as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, and the genuineness of activities," with an explicit conjunctive linking; Document 1 lists genuineness and compliance first then continues.
    • Practical impact: These are drafting variations that change emphasis but, on their face, not the substantive standard-the authority must be satisfied as to genuineness and compliance. Absent further context or definitions, the operational test remains similar. The document does not state any interpretive guidance about how these differences should be resolved.
  • Other variations: Minor differences (for example "as prescribed" versus "as may be prescribed") are present.
    • Practical impact: These appear stylistic and do not, by themselves in the provided text, change substantive rights or obligations. The document does not state any consequential administrative guidance.

Practical Implications

  • Eligibility screening: Applicants must ensure they satisfy the seven listed conditions. In particular, the religious-expenditure metric ("5% or more") is a hard threshold in the text and can render otherwise qualifying organisations ineligible if religious spending equals or exceeds that proportion. Organisations should carefully compute and document the nature of expenditures to demonstrate compliance with clause (b). The document does not provide a methodology for such calculation.
  • Record-keeping and reporting: Clauses (d), (e) and (f) require maintenance of regular accounts and submission (and correction) of prescribed statements. This creates clear record-keeping obligations; the precise contents, form, timing and verification procedures are to be prescribed and are Not stated in the document. The requirement to furnish donor certificates (clause (g)) imposes an administrative obligation on the recipient organisation.
  • Timelines for administrative action: The Table sets finite time windows for applicants to file and for the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to decide; applicants should plan filings to avoid missed windows, especially on expiry/renewal scenarios where advance filings (at least six months) are mandated.
  • Risk of rejection/cancellation: Sub-section (3) allows the authority to call for documents and make inquiries; if not satisfied, it may reject an application (and in some cases cancel approval). The clause provides procedural fairness by requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejection, but the operational scope of inquiries and what constitutes satisfaction is Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 354 provides a statutory route for registered non-profits or specified persons to obtain approval relevant to donations u/s 133(1)(b)(ii).
  • Seven express eligibility and compliance conditions cover non-discrimination, charitable purpose, restrictions on asset transfer, accounts, prescribed statements, correction mechanisms and donor certificates.
  • The provision sets distinct application windows, decision timeframes and validity periods (three or five tax years, depending on circumstances) in a five-row Table.
  • Clause (b) contains a strict threshold on "religious-nature" expenditure-"5% or more" of total income-which can render organisations ineligible even if expenditure equals exactly 5%.
  • The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has inquiry powers and may approve, reject or (where applicable) cancel approvals, but must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejection.
  • Many operational details (definitions, prescribed forms, calculation rules, content of Schedules, and applicable other laws) are left to prescription or are Not stated in the document.

Full Text:

Section 354 Application for approval for purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii).

Topics

Acts Income Tax