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 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

      ActsIncome Tax