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 SCHEDULE XI "RECOGNISED PROVIDENT FUNDS" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

18 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

SCHEDULE XI - RECOGNISED PROVIDENT FUNDS

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

These two texts are versions of Schedule XI dealing with recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds and gratuity funds: Document 1 is titled "SCHEDULE-XI of Income-tax Act, 2025" (Act version) and Document 2 is titled "Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version" (Bill - old). They are largely congruent substantively but contain drafting differences: textual refinements, cross-reference variations, and at least one change in statutory reference governing "Government securities." Impacted parties include employers, trustees of funds, employees participating in such funds, tax authorities and the Board (Rule-making body). No effective date is stated in the texts provided.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Schedule XI [See section 2(91)] (recognised provident funds; approved superannuation and gratuity funds) as part of the Income-tax law corpus. The Schedule sets out recognition/approval regimes, definitions, conditions for recognition/approval, tax treatment of contributions/accumulations, reporting and procedural obligations, powers of the Board to make rules, and appeals against adverse administrative orders. Definitions provided include "approving authority", "employer", "employee", "contribution", "balance to the credit of an employee", "annual accretion", "accumulated balance due to an employee", "regulations of a fund" and "salary". No definitions of "Board", "Fund Commissioner" or effective dates are provided within the Bill text.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

The document is SCHEDULE-XI concerning recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds and gratuity funds. It is presented as Part A (Recognised Provident Funds), Part B (Approved Superannuation Funds and Gratuity Funds), and Part C (rule-making powers). The Schedule operates under the Income Tax Bill/Act framework (See section 2(91)). Coverage extends to recognition and approval of funds, conditions for recognition/approval, tax treatment of contributions, interest and accumulated balances, accounts and reporting requirements, appeals against recognition/approval decisions, and Board rule-making powers. The Schedule excludes funds governed by the Provident Funds Act, 1925.

Interpretation

The text frames legislative intent to regulate tax consequences of employer and employee contributions to employment-related retirement funds while permitting administrative oversight through an "approving authority" (Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) and rule-making by the Board. The drafting emphasises:

  • Recognition/approval is discretionary, conditional and revocable by administrative authority.
  • Tax treatment is tied to compliance with specified structural conditions (trust form, vesting, nature of fund assets, payment/withdrawal rules, and residency/employee scope).
  • Where conditions are not met (or not applicable), ordinary tax rules apply (e.g., accumulated balances may be included in total income and treated as salary in certain contexts).

Exceptions/Provisos

The Schedule contains several provisos and relaxations:

  • Paragraph 1: Exclusion - Schedule does not apply to funds covered by the Provident Funds Act, 1925.
  • Part A paragraph 5: Approving authority may relax conditions (e.g., funds maintained by employers with principal place of business outside India provided <=10% employees outside India; special contribution rules for employees serving in armed forces or national service; retention of accumulated balances on employee request; special relaxation for low-salary employees and contingent bonuses).
  • Part A paragraph 8: Exclusion of accumulated balance from total income when continuous service >=5 years or termination for specified causes; transfer to recognised fund or notified pension scheme also qualifies.
  • Part B paragraph 3: Approval for superannuation/gratuity funds requires irrevocable trust, >=90% employees in India and payment of benefits in India, among other conditions.
  • Part C: Rule-making constrained by statutory limits (e.g., no rule can require more than 50% of fund money to be invested in government securities - note differing statutory source in drafts).

Illustrations

  • Example 1: An employee with continuous service of six years receives accumulated balance on cessation of employment - the accumulated balance is excluded from the employee's total income under paragraph 8(1)(a).
  • Example 2: An employer contributes 15% of an employee's salary to a recognised provident fund; the portion exceeding 12% (i.e., 3%) is "deemed to have been received by the employee" and included in his total income for that tax year under paragraph 6.
  • Example 3: A provident fund is recognised but a portion of its assets includes capital gains from transfer of capital assets - such gains are permitted fund components under paragraph 4(e)(v).

Interplay

The Schedule expressly interacts with:

  • Provident Funds Act, 1925 - funds under that Act are excluded from this Schedule.
  • Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - paragraph 4(f) ties eligibility to establishments covered u/s 1(3) or notified u/s 1(4) of that Act, and to exemptions u/s 17 schemes.
  • Other tax provisions - paragraph 6 links to rates fixed by Central Government by notification for interest treatment; paragraph 10 invokes Chapter XIX-B procedural rules for tax deduction at source (TDS) as if the balance were salary.
  • Rule-making restrictions reference a statute governing "Government securities" (the Bill and Act texts differ as to which statute supplies the definition), which affects investment regulation under Part C.

Differences between SCHEDULE-XI of Income-tax Act, 2025 and SCHEDULE-XI of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version

  • Language and drafting variances: The Act text (Document 1) uses slightly different phrasing in definitions (e.g., "credited by or on behalf of any employee out of his salary, or by an employer out of his own funds" vs. Bill text "credited by or on behalf of any employee from his salary, or by an employer from his own funds"). These are drafting differences only and do not change substantive meaning.
    • Practical impact: Minimal; no change in legal effect.
  • Terminology for certain clauses and cross-references: In Part C (power to make rules), Document 1 cites "Government Securities Act, 2006" and refers to "section 2(f) of the Government Securities Act, 2006"; Document 2 references "section 2 of the Public Debt Act, 1944" (or earlier draft language). The Bill (Document 2) also contains editorial footnotes and alternative wording such as "as prescribed" vs "may be prescribed" in some places.
    • Practical impact: Potentially material for interpretation of investment limits (i.e., which statutory definition of "Government securities" applies). If the Act adopts the Government Securities Act (2006) definition, that may differ from the Public Debt Act (1944) definition used in the Bill; this affects which instruments qualify as government securities for the 50% investment cap and could affect trustees' permitted investments.
  • Substantive alignment and rewording of specific paragraphs: In some paragraphs the Act clarifies or restructures language (for example, paragraph 5(3) in Document 1 states "Irrespective of anything contained in paragraph 4(e) or (i),-" while Document 2 states "Irrespective of anything contained in paragraph 4(e) or paragraph 4(i),-".) These are editorial only.
    • Practical impact: None substantive; only formatting/drafting clarity.
  • Headings, numbering and minor content differences: Document 1 uses headings such as "Accounts of recognised provident funds.- (1) The accounts..." while Document 2 uses similar headings but sometimes adds slight wording changes (e.g., "Appeal" vs "Appeals", "Liabilities of trustees on cessation of approval" vs "Liability of trustees on cessation of approval").
    • Practical impact: Procedural or interpretive impact is negligible unless an amended heading reflects a legislative intent to change multiplicity (e.g., singular/plural) - but the text of paragraphs remains substantively the same.
  • Cross-references to other Schedules/Sections and Table references: Document 1 refers to "Schedule II (Table: Sl. No. 8)" in Part B para 7; Document 2 also references Schedule II (Table: Sl. No. 8) but a footnote corrects some earlier drafting errors elsewhere. There is no material difference in the substantive treatment.
    • Practical impact: None substantive; only a drafting correction in the Bill had been noted.
  • Rule-making clause references to Board powers and section 534: Document 1 ends Part C with "All rules made under this Part shall be subject to section 534." Document 2 likewise ends with "Rules to be subject section 534.-All rules..." The Bill includes a minor textual difference in citation of the enabling section for rules (Public Debt Act vs Government Securities Act), as noted above.
    • Practical impact: The practical effect is to confirm executive rule-making remains subject to section 534; no substantive change beyond the securities definition difference flagged earlier.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Trustees and employers must ensure funds comply with structural conditions (trustee vesting, non-revocability, permitted assets, payment rules, employee/residency thresholds) to secure recognition/approval and preserve tax exemptions. Failure may expose accumulated balances to inclusion in employee's taxable income and create TDS obligations under Chapter XIX-B.
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The Schedule requires maintenance of prescribed accounts, availability of records for inspection and provision of abstracts to the Assessing Officer. Trustees should retain clear records of employee contributions credited, employer contributions, interest calculations, transfers between funds, and documentation supporting conditions for exemption (e.g., proof of continuous service, reasons for termination).
  • Investment compliance: Trustees must monitor permitted investments and the 50% government securities cap in rules - attention is required to which statutory definition of "government securities" is applied (see differences noted above).

Key Takeaways

  • The Schedule conditions tax-favourable treatment on strict structural and operational criteria for provident, superannuation and gratuity funds.
  • Employer contributions above specified thresholds (12% for provident funds) and excess interest credited at rates above notified ceilings are taxable in the hands of employees.
  • Recognition/approval is administratively controlled and revocable; trustees must comply with information, accounts and reporting obligations and face inspection and appeal procedures.
  • Relaxations exist for overseas employer funds (<=10% employees outside India), armed forces service, retention of transferred balances, and low-salary employees - but only at approving authority's discretion and subject to rules.
  • When recognition/approval is accorded to funds with pre-existing balances, transferred balances may be brought into tax in the tax year recognition takes effect, subject to Board rules and possible summary calculation in accounting difficulty cases.
  • Trustees remain potentially liable for tax consequences even after cessation of approval/recognition in respect of payments attributable to earlier periods.
  • Minor drafting differences between Bill and Act versions are mostly editorial; the notable substantive drafting difference concerns which statute defines "government securities" for investment limits, affecting permissible investments.

Full Text:

SCHEDULE XI - RECOGNISED PROVIDENT FUNDS

Topics

Acts Income Tax