Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome 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.

    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 SCHEDULE I "CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES NOT TO CONSTITUTE BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      17 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      SCHEDULE I CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES NOT TO CONSTITUTE BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is SCHEDULE I to the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), setting out conditions u/s 9(12) for when activities of certain foreign investment funds and their fund managers will not constitute a "business connection" in India. It matters to non-resident funds, their managers, Indian investors, and tax authorities because satisfaction of these conditions removes a key nexus for Indian taxation. Who is affected: eligible investment funds established outside India, eligible fund managers, Indian resident investors and regulatory authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule I is framed "See section 9(12)" and supplies conditions under which certain activities shall not constitute a business connection in India. Scope: applies to eligible investment funds established/incorporated/registered outside India that collect funds from members for investment for their benefit and to eligible fund managers engaged in fund management activity on behalf of such funds. Definitions provided include associate, connected person (cross-referenced to section 184(5)), corpus, entity, and "specified regulations" (including SEBI Portfolio Managers Regulations, 1993 and SEBI Investment Advisers Regulations, 2013, or other notified SEBI regulations).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule specifies exhaustive conditions that an eligible investment fund must satisfy to attract non-application of business-connection rules u/s 9(12). Key textual ingredients: the fund must be non-resident; either resident of or established in a country/territory covered by agreements u/s 159(1) or (2) or notified; aggregate Indian resident participation (directly or indirectly) must not exceed 5% of corpus on 1 April and 1 October each tax year (with certain computation carve-outs); investor protection regulations must apply in the fund's jurisdiction; minimum 25 members who are not connected persons; individual member participation caps of 10%; top ten-members' aggregate participation <50%; single-entity concentration limit of 25%; prohibition on investing in associate entity; minimum monthly average corpus of INR 100 crore (with startup and wind-up exceptions); prohibition on carrying on or controlling business in India; fund must not be engaged in activities constituting business connection in India except those undertaken by the eligible fund manager; remuneration to eligible fund manager must be not less than an amount calculated in a prescribed manner. The Schedule also prescribes conditions for eligible fund managers (not an employee or connected person; registration under specified regulations; ordinary course of business; profit interest cap of 20% for manager and connected persons).

      Interpretation

      The text reflects a legislative intent to create a safe harbour for certain foreign investment funds and their managers so that merely soliciting Indian capital or performing limited fund-management services does not constitute a business connection in India, provided objective thresholds and structural safeguards are met. The Schedule uses enumerated quantitative ceilings (5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, INR 100 crore) and qualitative conditions (registration, independence, non-resident status) to distinguish passive/fiduciary investment vehicles from entities establishing a taxable presence. The requirement of registration under "specified regulations" signals reliance on securities regulator oversight as a substitute for domestic regulatory touchpoints.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Multiple carve-outs exist: (i) computation concession excluding certain managerial contributions up to INR 25 crore in the first three years from the 5% test; (ii) timing relief permitting four months after 1 April or 1 October to cure excess Indian participation; (iii) the corpus minimum not applying to funds wound up within the tax year and an 12-month grace period for newly established funds; (iv) paragraph (2) exempting paragraphs 1(e), (f), (g) (membership and concentration tests) for sovereign/state-backed funds and such others as notified by the Central Government; (v) in the Bill (Old Version) a power for the Central Government to by notification exempt any one or more conditions in sub-paragraph (1) (other than 1(c)) or (3) for IFSC-based eligible fund managers commencing operations on or before 31-03-2030.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-resident fund with 30 unconnected members, whose Indian-resident direct holdings are 4% of corpus on 1 April and 1 October, monthly average corpus INR 120 crore, with fund manager registered under SEBI PM Regulations (1993) and manager remunerated per prescribed method - the fund meets the Schedule's conditions and would not be a business connection in India (subject to other facts). (All facts consistent with the text.)
      • Example 2: A fund where ten members together (with connected persons) hold 52% of corpus - this fails paragraph 1(g) and would not qualify for the safe harbour unless the fund falls within paragraph 2 or the Central Government notifies exemption. (Consistent with the text.)
      • Example 3: A newly established eligible fund whose monthly average corpus only reaches INR 90 crore within twelve months - the Schedule permits twelve months from the end of the month of establishment to meet the INR 100 crore corpus minimum; if not met after that window, the condition would not be satisfied. (Consistent with the text.)

      Interplay

      The Schedule cross-references section 9(12) (to which it belongs), section 159(1) or (2) (agreements-likely double taxation or information exchange), section 184(5) (definition of connected person) and "specified regulations" (SEBI instruments). It contemplates implementation details to be prescribed and notifications by the Central Government for exceptions. The text also anticipates Board-prescribed guidelines for application. No further rules, circulars, or case law are mentioned in the document.

      Differences between the two versions and practical impact

      • Aggregation test - "directly or indirectly" removed: The Bill (Old Version) at paragraph 1(c) required that the aggregate participation or investment "directly or indirectly" by Indian residents does not exceed 5% of corpus; the Act version replaces this with "directly, by persons resident in India" (removing "indirectly").
        • Practical impact: the Act narrows the scope of Indian participation counted toward the 5% threshold by excluding indirect holdings (e.g., holdings through intermediate entities). This relaxes the restriction for some funds with indirect Indian exposures and reduces compliance complexity in tracing indirect interests, but may increase opportunities for circumvention unless other rules address substance.
      • Carve-out for notification modifying conditions (IFSC exception): The Bill (Old Version) at paragraph 1(6) allowed the Central Government to exempt any one or more conditions in sub-paragraph (1) (other than paragraph (1)(c)) or (3) for eligible funds with an IFSC-based fund manager commencing operations by 31-03-2030. The Act version removes the specific exclusion of paragraph (1)(c) and instead permits notification to specify that any one or more of the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) or (3) may not apply or may apply with modifications when the fund manager is located in an IFSC and has commenced operations on or before 31-03-2030.
        • Practical impact: the Act broadens executive flexibility to relax or modify paragraph (1)(c) (the 5% Indian participation test) as well as other conditions for IFSC-located managers, potentially making IFSCs more attractive and enabling policy tailoring to attract fund managers.
      • Specified regulations reference updated: The Bill (Old Version) defined "specified regulations" to include the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993; the Act version updates this reference to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 2020.
        • Practical impact: brings the schedule into alignment with the contemporary regulatory regime governing portfolio managers; ensures terminology and cross-references align with current SEBI instruments.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Funds must monitor and document member composition, direct and indirect participation percentages (Bill requires counting indirect holdings), concentration limits, corpus averages, and arm's-length remuneration calculations for fund managers. Non-compliance with any enumerated condition risks losing the safe harbour and exposure to Indian taxation as a business connection. The Bill heightens compliance burden by requiring indirect participation tracking for the 5% test.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Schedule mandates annual statement filing within 90 days of tax year end in prescribed form and furnishing other relevant documents; funds should maintain contemporaneous records demonstrating member identities, connected-person linkages (per section 184(5)), calculations of corpus and averages, investment allocations (entity-wise), and remuneration computation to substantiate compliance. (All procedural specifics beyond the 90-day statement timing are Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • The Schedule provides an enumerated safe harbour from being a business connection in India for non-resident investment funds and their managers subject to multiple quantitative and qualitative conditions.
      • The Bill (Old Version) requires that the 5% participation cap account for direct and indirect Indian holdings, increasing compliance complexity for funds with layered ownership.
      • Membership, concentration and single-entity investment ceilings aim to ensure widespread investor base and diversification; sovereign/state funds are exempt from these membership tests.
      • Eligible fund managers must be independent, registered under specified regulations, act in ordinary course of business and have capped profit entitlements (20%).
      • Funds must file prescribed statements within 90 days of the tax year-end; further procedural details are to be prescribed or notified.
      • Several material procedural details and effective date are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE I CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES NOT TO CONSTITUTE BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax