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 SCHEDULE II "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME" 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 II INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      SCHEDULE II sets out classes of income that are excluded from "total income" for income-tax purposes. The Bill (Old Version) and the enacted Act differ in several material respects affecting life-insurance exclusions, pension/NPS entries, references to International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) entities, and the inclusion of equalisation-levy income. Affected parties include policyholders, insurers, employers, employees, pension subscribers, IFSC entities and tax authorities. Effective dates are stated within specific entries (for example, policy issue periods and 1 April 2002/2023) where provided; no single overarching commencement date for the Schedule is stated in the Bill text.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: SCHEDULE II (See section 11) - "Income not to be included in total income." The Schedule lists categories of exempt income (column B) subject to conditions (column C). Definitions and notes at the end assign meanings to terms used in the table. The Bill (Old Version) is the source document for this commentary. Any differences vis-`a-vis the enacted Act are identified only insofar as both texts were provided; where a detail is absent in the Bill text, the phrase "Not stated in the document." has been used.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule enumerates 16 heads of income excluded from total income, including: agricultural income; sums under life-insurance policies (with sub-conditions tied to period of issue, premium-to-sum-assured ratios and aggregate premium ceilings); provident fund and recognised provident fund payments (with carve-outs for interest on large contributions on/after 1 April 2021); payments under Sukanya Samriddhi, National Pension System (NPS) Trust, Agniveer Corpus Fund, approved superannuation funds; scholarships; awards/rewards instituted or approved by government; interest or other receipts on specified government securities and deposits; interest on gold bonds/certificates; interest on bonds issued by local authorities or State Pooled Finance Entities; income on transfer of certain UTI units; income chargeable to equalisation levy (new insertion); and specific categories u/s 10(15) and related provisions of the 1961 Act as applicable.

      Interpretation

      The text frames exclusions as conditional: each head is subject to prescribed conditions and definitions in accompanying notes. Legislative intent, as discernible from the Bill text, is to preserve traditional exemptions (agriculture, certain pensions, scholarships, specified government securities) while tightening or clarifying tax-exempt treatment for life-insurance receipts and retirement/savings vehicles by reference to issue dates, premium ratios, aggregate premium ceilings and contribution thresholds. The insertion of equalisation-levy related exclusion (Sl. No. 15) signals explicit recognition of overlap between equalisation-levy chargeability and income-tax neutrality for certain cross-border digital services.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions provided in the Bill include:

      • Life-insurance sums excluded only if policies meet period-specific premium-to-sum-assured ratios and, for certain periods, aggregate premium ceilings (Rs. 2,50,000 or Rs. 5,00,000) - and certain sums (section 127 receipts; Keyman policies) are expressly ineligible.
      • Portions of interest on provident fund/recognised provident fund balances attributable to contributions on/after 1 April 2021 are not eligible for exclusion where contributions exceed specified thresholds (Rs.5,00,000 / Rs.2,50,000) and the amount not excluded is to be computed as prescribed.
      • NPS payments excluded only to the extent they do not exceed 60% of the total amount payable on closure/opt-out.
      • Approved superannuation fund payments are exempt only in specified circumstances (death, commutation at retirement/age, refund in limited cases, transfer to specified pension schemes).
      • Equalisation-levy related incomes are excluded only where not chargeable as royalty/FTS in India under agreements notified u/s 159 (explicit exception in Sl. No. 15).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A unit-linked life policy issued on 1 Oct 2023 with annual premium such that premium-to-sum-assured ratio is 12% and aggregate premium per tax year is Rs.2,00,000 - the Bill permits exclusion if it meets the Item 2 conditions (unit-linked post-1-April-2023: ratio <=15% for special, <=10% for others; aggregate <=Rs.2,50,000 for ULIP). Whether treated as "special policy" depends on disability/disease status u/rs - Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: An employee receives accumulated recognised provident fund balance including interest attributable to contributions of Rs.6,00,000 made on/after 1 April 2021 in a year when no employer contribution was made - interest attributable to that contribution is not eligible for exclusion (threshold exceeded Rs.5,00,000); the portion not excluded to be computed as prescribed (procedure Not stated in the document).

      Interplay

      The Bill references other statutory instruments and provisions: Section 11 (hook), Section 127 (for life-insurance ineligibility), Schedule XI para 8, Schedule XV (definition of "actual capital sum assured"), Insurance Regulatory regulations, the Provident Funds Act, Government Savings Promotion Act (Sukanya Samriddhi), Dept. notifications regarding NPS (notifications not reproduced in the Bill text), Finance Act, 2016 (equalisation levy Chapter VIII) and section 159 agreements. The Bill contemplates Board guidelines for removal of difficulties. Where computation methods are required ("as prescribed"), the Bill defers to rules/regulations; these procedural details are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Bill (Old Version) and the Enacted Act - Practical Impact

      TopicBill (Old Version)Act (2025) - Differences & Practical Impact
      Reference to IFSC in life-insurance entryExclusion clause expressly excludes policies issued by "International Financial Services Centre insurance intermediary office" from the general test; IFSC office language appears within clause (a).

      The Act broadens IFSC coverage differently (references to "International Financial Services Centre Insurance Office") and later adds a special carve-out that aggregate premium conditions do not apply to policies issued on or after 1 April 2025 by the IFSC Insurance Office.

      Practical impact: IFSC-issued policies post-1-Apr-2025 enjoy relaxed aggregate-premium limits under the Act versus the Bill - this benefits IFSC policyholders and insurers.

      Section reference for ineligible insurance sumsIneligibility lists section 127 (no subsection reference) and Keyman policies.

      The Act specifies "section 127(4)" as ineligible; this narrows or clarifies which portion of section 127 is meant.

      Practical impact: narrower/clearer exclusion scope for section 127 receipts, reducing interpretive ambiguity.

      Aggregate premium thresholds for policies issued on/after 1-Apr-2023ULIPs: aggregate <=Rs.2,50,000; other policies: aggregate <=Rs.5,00,000.

      The Act restates these ceilings but then adds the IFSC carve-out for policies issued on/after 1-Apr-2025.

      Practical impact: domestic policyholders unchanged, IFSC policyholders gain advantage.

      NPS-related entries (Sl. Nos. 15 & 16)The Bill lacks specific entries for "lump sum amount" defined by a particular notification and for Unified Pension Scheme subscriber-specific references.

      The Act adds two discrete entries (Sl. Nos. 15 and 16) dealing with NPS payments to Unified Pension Scheme subscribers and "lump sum amount" per a departmental notification dated 24 Jan 2025.

      Practical impact: greater specificity and targeted exemption for Unified Pension Scheme subscribers under NPS, linking to a concrete notification (FX-1/3/2024-PR). This reduces uncertainty for affected NPS subscribers.

      Equalisation levy incomeBill includes Sl. No. 15 addressing income chargeable to equalisation levy.

      The Act omits the Bill's Sl. No. 15 equalisation-levy entry or shifts numbering; comparison shows the Act instead includes other NPS-related items.

      Practical impact: the treatment of equalisation-levy incomes requires reconciliation between Act text and prior Bill; taxpayers relying on the Bill's exclusion must verify the final Act wording (Not stated in the document).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Life-insurance exclusions carry detailed temporal and quantitative conditions (period of issue, premium-to-sum-assured ratio, aggregate premium ceilings). Insurers and policyholders must verify issue date classifications and compute premium ratios and aggregate premiums across the policy term. The explicit ineligibility for keyman policies and section 127 receipts increases scrutiny over policy ownership and assignment.
      • NPS and provident fund entries impose record-keeping obligations: authorities and subscribers must track contributions made on or after 1 April 2021 separately, and identify portions of interest attributable to contributions exceeding thresholds. The method of computing the amount not excluded is left to prescribed rules - until rules are notified, potential uncertainty persists.
      • Equalisation-levy clause (Sl. No. 15): taxpayers and digital service providers should reconcile equalisation-levy exposure and Income-tax chargeability; the clause excludes income chargeable to equalisation levy except where the income is otherwise taxable in India as royalty/FTS under notified agreements (thus creating an interplay with tax treaty determinations and notifications u/s 159).
      • IFSC references: the Bill treats certain IFSC insurance intermediary office receipts differently in the life-insurance entry (exclusion/inclusion language differs versus the Act). Parties operating within IFSCs should note the special treatment and any administrative guidance forthcoming.
      • Procedural uncertainty: multiple entries defer to "as prescribed" computations and to notifications by the Central Government; until those are issued, taxpayers face interpretation and compliance risk. The Board's power to issue binding guidelines (with Central Government approval) is preserved, indicating administrative rule-making will shape practical application.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill retains traditional exemptions (agriculture, scholarships, certain pension/retirement receipts) while imposing quantified tests on insurance exclusions (period-specific ratios and aggregate premium ceilings).
      • Interest on provident fund balances attributable to large post-1-April-2021 contributions is explicitly excluded from exemption, with thresholds (Rs.5,00,000 / Rs.2,50,000) and prescribed computation methods.
      • Equalisation-levy related income is newly addressed - excluded except where taxable in India as royalty/FTS under notified agreements.
      • Certain specific sums are expressly excluded from insurance exemption (section 127 receipts; Keyman insurance), tightening the prior broader language.
      • Several entries defer key operational questions to rules/notifications; substantial administrative guidance is required to operationalise the Schedule.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE II INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax