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
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENT TO SEVENTH SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2001
    NewsBill
    EXEMPTION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ON VALUE OF BIOGAS/COMPRESSED BIOGAS (CBG) CONTAINED IN BLENDED C...
    NewsBill
    DEFERMENT OF DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHER EXCISE DUTY ON SALE OF UNBLENDED DIESEL
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE CGST ACT, 2017
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE IGST ACT, 2017
    Intermediary Services Under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and Export of Services Under Section 2(6):...
    Distinction Between Setting Aside an Illegal Bail Order and Cancellation of Bail: Revisional Scrutin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153C (Finance Act, 2015) and Third-Party Search Assessments: Interplay of Belongs To and Per...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Effect of Section 92CA(1) Reference on Assessment Limitation: Application of Section 153(4) in Trans...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Digital Material Recovered in Search under Section 132 and Its Nexus with the Non-Searched Person: C...
    Refund Disputes Linked to Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B): Consequences of Omission of Rules Without Exp...
    Service Mechanisms (for Notices and SCN) in GST: Deemed Service, Portal Availability, and Statutory ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Due Compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for Admissibility of Electronic Records...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Sequential Application of the General Rules for Interpretation in Customs Tariff Classification unde...
    Section 74 CGST Proceedings and the Impermissibility of Clubbing Multiple Financial Years in a Singl...
    Composite Show Cause Notices Under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Requirement of Tax-Perio...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Reverse Burden, Ownership Attribution, and Proof in Gold Seizure Cases: Reaffirming Procedural Safeg...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 68, Loan Credits, and the Limits of Suspicion: Evidentiary Discipline in Search-Linked Asses...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    JAO vs. FAO: Reassessment in the Faceless Era: The Continuing Validity of JAO Jurisdiction Pending S...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour, Tax Compliance, and Judicial Reform: Legally Enforceable Debt and Procedural Innov...
❯❯
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
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Chewing and related tobacco NCCD schedule rates raised to 60% from May 1, 2026, while effective rate stays 25%.
    Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 2001 is amended to raise NCCD rates from 25% to 60% for HS 2403 99 10 (chewing tobacco), HS 2403 99 30 (jarda scented tobacco) and HS 2403 99 90 (other tobacco products including gutkha) effective 01.05.2026, while a notification will maintain the applied effective rate at 25%.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Biogas/CBG in blended CNG: value and related taxes excluded from transaction value for central excise from 02.02.2026.
    The value of Biogas/Compressed Biogas (CBG) contained in blended CNG, and the central, state, union territory or integrated taxes paid on that Biogas/CBG, are excluded from the transaction value for computing central excise duty on blended CNG; the exclusion is effected by amending the existing notification framework and takes effect from 02.02.2026, with the prior GST-only relief rescinded.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Unblended diesel additional excise duty implementation deferred until 31.03.2028 by amendment to existing notification effective immediately.
    The additional excise duty of Rs.2 per litre on unblended diesel is deferred until 31.03.2028 by amendment of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Excise through Notification No. 02/2026 Central Excise (01.02.2026), thereby postponing the levy of the higher duty on unblended diesel.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Goods and Services Tax: amendments remove discount-agreement link, expand refund scope, and allow interim appellate authorities.
    Amendments remove the requirement that a post-sale discount be linked to an agreement and prescribe issuance of a credit note under section 34 when input tax credit is reversed; section 34 is amended to reference section 15. Section 54 is amended to extend provisional refunds to inverted duty structure claims and to remove the sanction threshold for refunds on exported goods with tax paid. Section 101A gains sub-section (1A) allowing the Central Government to notify an existing authority or tribunal to hear appeals under section 101B pending the National Appellate Authority, with sub-sections (2)-(13) not applying where such empowerment occurs, effective 01.04.2026.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Place of supply for intermediary services will follow the IGST Act default provision after omission of the specific clause.
    The amendment omits clause (b) of sub section (8) of section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 so that the place of supply for intermediary services will be determined by the default provision in section 13(2) of the IGST Act, aligning intermediary services with the Act's general place of supply framework.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Education consultancy commissions treated as exportable services, not intermediary services, where foreign institution is the contracting recipient.
    The Court held that the intermediary test focuses on whether a person merely "arranges or facilitates" a supply, excluding those who supply on their own account; where agreements and consideration establish a principal-to-principal supply to foreign educational institutions, the services qualify as export of services and not intermediary services, making place of supply the recipient's location and supporting refund entitlement.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST arrests: Court set aside bail premised on format defects where substantive compliance and no demonstrable prejudice existed.
    The High Court held that a challenge to the legal sustainability of a bail order is distinct from cancellation for supervening conduct and, on the facts, found substantive compliance with CGST arrest safeguards (including authorisation recording reasons to believe and supply of arrest memo and grounds) and BNSS Sections 47-48 when assessed through a prejudice oriented test; absence of statutory headings or non enclosure of detailed grounds with the relative did not, without demonstrable prejudice, justify the magistrate's bail order, which was set aside and the bail bonds cancelled with liberty to apply afresh.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 153C: amended trigger applies if seized material is received post amendment, widening third party assessment scope.
    The substituted text widens the jurisdictional trigger for third party assessments from strict ownership to where books or documents "pertain to" or contain information that "relates to" the other person; the first proviso's deeming fiction makes the date of receipt of seized material by the other person's Assessing Officer the operative reference point, so if receipt, satisfaction and issuance of notice occur after the amendment, the amended provision governs, subject to the requirement of recorded satisfaction that the material bears on determination of total income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing assessments: outer statutory limitation governs final orders; DRP deadlines do not enlarge the overall limitation.
    The tribunal permitted admission of additional legal grounds based on facts on record and held that the outer statutory limitation governs final assessments in eligible-assessee transfer pricing cases. The dispute-resolution procedural deadline requires prompt action after directions but does not enlarge the overall limitation; statutory extension available for transfer pricing references is to be applied to the outer limit, and external judicial limitation extensions do not extend the time for completing original assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Digital material recovered in a third party search cannot alone justify invoking Section 153C without a direct nexus to the non searched person.
    Section 153C jurisdiction requires seized or requisitioned books of account or documents from a search that relate to or pertain to a non searched person; digital images recovered in a third party search that did not name or connect the petitioners could not sustain Section 153C. The Assessing Officer's reliance on post search forms, voluntary supply of documents, public domain inquiries, and an inferential consideration mismatch rendered the recorded satisfaction de hors the statutory trigger, allowing writ relief for jurisdictional defect.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST refund and recovery proceedings founded solely on omitted rules lapse absent express saving clause.
    Omission of Rule 89(4B) and Rule 96(10) without an express saving clause causes pending proceedings and non-final orders founded solely on those rules to lapse, except for transactions past and closed. The General Clauses Act's preservation principle does not apply to omissions effected by subordinate rules/notification, and transitional or laying provisions of the parent statute do not operate as omnibus saving clauses. Consequently, undisposed show cause notices and orders dependent only on the omitted rules were quashed and affected refund applications were remitted for reconsideration after hearing within a stipulated period.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST electronic service by portal or email may not trigger appeal limitation absent verifiable communication or retrieval evidence.
    Whether portal upload or e-mail intimation automatically triggers the limitation period under Section 107 depends on whether such electronic modes fall within the statutory deeming fictions of Section 169(2) or Section 169(3). Although Section 169(1)(c)-(d) and Rule 142 permit electronic service, the express deeming consequences are confined to specified modes; absent acknowledgement or verifiable retrieval logs, IT Act presumptions of dispatch/receipt do not alone establish communication for appeal limitation.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic evidence admissibility in customs proceedings: contemporaneous extraction records and Section 108 statements can satisfy the certificate requirement.
    The Court held that contemporaneous extraction/printing records, device particulars, and un-retracted Section 108 statements acknowledging computer printouts can constitute substantive due compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; a certificate not in prescribed format will not automatically invalidate admissibility where authenticity is not disputed, while other statutory evidentiary issues (including Section 138B) remain open for adjudication.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Aluminium shelving classed by import condition: use allowed only if statutorily permitted; supports aren't parts at import.
    Classification requires sequentially applying GRI 1 with relevant Section and Chapter Notes; aligned HSN Explanatory Notes guide interpretation. Use is relevant only where permitted and must reflect intended use objectively evident at importation per the as imported principle. A "part" must have an essential functional nexus to machine operation; mere supporting platforms or shelves that do not contribute mechanically to operation are not parts and may instead fall under material-based structure headings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Composite GST show cause notices spanning multiple financial years misalign tax-period limitation and may be quashed.
    Issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice covering distinct financial years was held impermissible because GST liability is tethered to tax-period returns and limitation timelines; consolidation misaligns period-specific adjudication clocks, constitutes a jurisdictional defect, and warrants quashing with liberty to re-issue notices in strict conformity with the period-wise statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Composite GST show cause notices aggregating multiple financial years lack scope; demands must be period-specific and limitation-linked.
    The GST demand-and-recovery framework is period-based: tax liability and limitation are tied to returns for each tax period or financial year, and limitation is computed from the annual return due date or an erroneous return for that year. Consolidating multiple financial years into one consolidated show cause notice is outside the statutory design and constitutes a jurisdictional defect; administrative advisories cannot override the period-specific statutory scheme. Authorities may, if no other impediment exists, initiate proceedings framed strictly period-wise under the applicable demand provisions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Gold/jewellery cases require mandatory section 138B admissibility for investigation statements before proving ownership or smuggling links.
    Section 138B creates a mandatory admissibility regime for section 108 investigation statements: unless clause (a) applies, the maker must be examined before the adjudicating authority and an admissibility opinion recorded before using those statements to prove truth. Ownership cannot be fixed on an appellant where such statements are excluded, and confiscation/penalty theories for jewellery must follow the correct statutory route-section 111 for imported goods and section 120 when alleging goods are made from smuggled inputs. Documentary explanations require verification before rejection.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unsecured loans through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits absent transaction specific incriminating material.
    Unsecured bank routed loans cannot be treated as unexplained credits where the assessee produced confirmations, lender bank statements, audited accounts and tax filings, and the Assessing Officer relied chiefly on uncorroborated third party search statements or administrative press releases without transaction specific incriminating material. For years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, a generalized source of source obligation for loan credits is not mandated; repayments in the lender's account are distinct from fresh upstream borrowings. Appellate authorities may independently verify facts under their powers if the AO is given opportunity to respond.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment jurisdiction: both JAO and FAO held to have concurrent authority, pending apex resolution of the faceless regime.
    The Delhi High Court holds that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, construing Section 151A as administrative/enabling rather than jurisdiction-extinguishing. It reasons that routine SLP dismissals do not automatically create binding Article 141 precedent to overturn a coordinate-bench High Court view, and declines to treat the Delhi precedent as per incuriam absent a contrary Supreme Court ratio; interim apex stays are case-specific and do not displace the Delhi position.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Cheque dishonour cases: statutory presumptions preserved; tax breaches don't negate enforceability; procedural reforms directed.
    Once a cheque's execution is admitted, statutory presumptions of consideration and of a legally enforceable debt arise and, though rebuttable, the initial burden lies on the accused; unsupported claims of payer incapacity or a 'blank cheque' are insufficient without positive evidence. Breach of tax-related cash-transaction rules attracts fiscal penalties but does not render the underlying loan unenforceable for cheque-dishonour purposes. Revisional courts may not overturn concurrent factual findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error. Procedural reforms and calibrated compounding measures are directed to expedite and streamline Section 138 proceedings.

    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 XIV "INSURANCE BUSINESS" 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-XIV INSURANCE BUSINESS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document-set compares SCHEDULE XIV - "INSURANCE BUSINESS" - as appearing in the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). It governs computation of taxable profits for life and other insurance businesses and applies to insurers and non-resident insurers operating through branches in India. Effective dates or decision dates: Not stated in the documents.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule XIV is attached to the Income-tax Act (See section 55). It sets special computation rules for profits and gains of insurance businesses. Scope: the Schedule divides into A (Life insurance business), B (Other insurance business), and C (Other provisions). The text includes references to actuarial valuations made under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), and to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (4 of 1999), and the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) for references to LIC. Definitions provided: "investments" and "life insurance business" (as defined in section 2(11) of the Insurance Act, 1938). The documents supply other operative phrases used throughout the Schedule. No further definitions or explanatory notes are provided.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage and primary rules:

      • Paragraph A(1): If a person is engaged in life insurance business during the tax year, that business's profits and gains shall be computed separately from any other business.
      • Paragraph A(2): Profits and gains from life insurance are the annual average of the surplus disclosed by the actuarial valuation under the Insurance Act, 1938 for the last inter-valuation period ending before the commencement of the tax year, adjusted to exclude any surplus or deficit from earlier inter-valuation periods. Any expenditure inadmissible u/s 34 for other businesses shall be added to such profits and gains.
      • Paragraph A(3): Where assessment is based on an annual average of surplus disclosed by a valuation for an inter-valuation period exceeding twelve months, computing income-tax for the year: (a) credit shall not be given as per specified cross-reference (see Differences section) for income-tax paid in the preceding tax year; and (b) credit shall be given for the annual average of income-tax paid by deduction at source from interest on securities or otherwise during such period.
      • Paragraph B(1): For insurance business other than life insurance, profits and gains shall be the "profit before tax and appropriations" as disclosed in the profit and loss account prepared under the Insurance Act, 1938 or IRDA Act or regulations, subject to specified add-backs and allowances: (a) add back inadmissible expenditures/allowances (including provisions for tax, dividend, reserve, or any other provision as may be prescribed) inadmissible u/ss 28 to 54; (b) add/deduct gains or losses on realisation of investments if not already in P&L; (c) add back provisions for diminution in investment value debited to P&L; (d) allow as deduction amounts carried to a reserve for unexpired risks as may be prescribed.
      • Paragraph B(2): Amounts added under B(1)(a) that are payable u/s 37 shall be allowed as a deduction in the year actually paid.
      • Paragraph C(5): For non-residents operating insurance via branches in India and in absence of reliable (or "more reliable") data, profits may be deemed as the proportion of global income corresponding to the proportion of premium income from India to total premium income. Paragraph C(5)(2) clarifies computation of global income for life insurance business of a non-resident be computed as per this Act for life insurance carried on in India.
      • Paragraph C(6): Interpretation clause: (a) "investments" include securities, stocks and shares; (b) "life insurance business" means that term as in section 2(11) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Additionally, references to the Insurance Act, 1938 regarding LIC shall be treated as references to that Act or section 43 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.

      Interpretation

      The Schedule mandates that life insurance profits be computed on an actuarial-surplus-average basis rather than purely on accounting profit, showing legislative intent to align income-tax computation for life insurers with actuarial valuation cycles. For non-life insurers the tax base is tied to the profit before tax and appropriations per statutory financial statements with enumerated tax adjustments. The text manifests an intent to use sector-specific statutory accounts and actuarial valuations as primary inputs. No further legislative history or intent statements are included.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions explicitly provided in the Schedule:

      • For life insurers, where inter-valuation period exceeds twelve months, treatment of tax credits is specially governed (see paragraph A(3)); the prior-year credit is excluded as per cross-reference and averaging of TDS credits is allowed.
      • For non-life insurers, certain amounts carried to reserve for unexpired risks are specifically allowed as deductions "as may be prescribed".
      • Amounts added back under paragraph B(1)(a) but payable u/s 37 are allowed when actually paid (timing proviso).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A life insurer with actuarial valuations covering an inter-valuation period of 18 months would compute the taxable life-insurance surplus as the annual average of the surplus from the last inter-valuation period, excluding earlier inter-period surplus/deficits; while computing tax the section A(3) rules on credit for prior-year tax and TDS averaging apply. (Illustration consistent with text; specific numbers Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A non-life insurer's P&L shows a provision for diminution in value of investments debited to P&L; per paragraph B(1)(c) that provision is to be added back in computing taxable profits. (Specific monetary impact Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The Schedule expressly requires reliance on accounts/statements prepared under the Insurance Act, 1938, IRDA Act, 1999, and regulations thereunder; it also cross-refers to sections 28-54, 34, 37 and a section-numbered provision referenced in paragraph A(3). It anticipates delegated prescription ("as may be prescribed") for certain reserves and provisions. No specific notifications, rules or circulars are cited in the text.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Section reference in paragraph 3(a): Document 1 refers to "section 390" for non-provision of credit for income-tax paid in the preceding tax year; Document 2 refers to "section 386".
        • Practical impact: The operative legal cross-reference differs. If section numbers differ materially in the Act, this changes which statutory mechanism governs denial of credit for prior-year tax when an inter-valuation period exceeds twelve months. The document texts do not state the content of either section, so the practical effect depends on the actual content of section 386 versus section 390 in the enacted statute. Not stated in the document: which section actually provides the intended rule.
      • Phraseology in paragraph 4(a): Document 1 adds the introductory qualification "subject to the other provision of this rule," before listing items to be added back, whereas Document 2 omits that introductory phrase.
        • Practical impact: The added qualification in Document 1 signals that the add-back in clause (a) may be limited by other provisions within the same rule (i.e., Schedule paragraph 4). That can narrow or contextualise the sweep of add-backs; Document 2's broader wording may be read as more absolute. The documents do not identify which "other provision" is intended to limit clause (a). Not stated in the document: the specific provisions that would limit clause (a).
      • Wording relating to availability of data for non-resident allocation (paragraph 5(1)): Document 1 uses the phrase "in the absence of more reliable data," while Document 2 uses "in the absence of reliable data."
        • Practical impact: Document Rs. 1's "more reliable" suggests a comparative standard (i.e., more reliable than other available measures), potentially allowing alternative bases where comparatively superior data exists; Document 2's "reliable" suggests a threshold standard (i.e., no reliable data at all). The documents do not supply examples or tests of reliability.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation differences: Examples include Document 1's clause 2 heading omitting the preposition "from" ("profits and gains life insurance business")-likely a typographical lapse-while Document 2 reads "profits and gains from life insurance business." Clause 6(1)(a) uses "include" (Doc 1) vs "includes" (Doc 2).
        • Practical impact: These are drafting-level variations unlikely to change substantive effect, though typographical or grammatical lapses can create interpretive questions in close cases. The documents do not indicate any intention to change meaning arising from punctuation or typography.
      • References to prescription/allowances wording: Both documents use "as may be prescribed" in various places; Document 1 sometimes inserts additional qualifiers such as "subject to the other provision of this rule."
        • Practical impact: Document 1's additional qualifiers may imply slightly greater internal limitation and reliance on delegated legislation. The documents do not provide the delegated rules/regulations.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Life insurers must ensure actuarial valuations and the method of annual averaging comply strictly with the Schedule's requirements; misapplication of inter-valuation adjustments or incorrect treatment of inadmissible expenditures may expose taxpayers to reassessment. For non-life insurers, careful reconciliation between statutory P&L items and tax adjustments (add-backs for inadmissible items, treatment of realisation gains/losses and diminution provisions) is required. The precise cross-reference in paragraph A(3) determines availability of prior-year tax credits; divergence across drafts creates a legal uncertainty until the correct statutory numbering is clarified.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Retain actuarial valuation reports, inter-valuation period calculations, detailed working of annual average surplus, documentary evidence for provisions and realisation gains/losses, and records of tax paid by deduction at source during inter-valuation periods. For non-resident branches, maintain premium income segmentation (India v. total) and any alternative "more reliable" data used to allocate global profits.

      Key Takeaways

      • Life insurance taxable profit is calculated as the annual average of actuarial surplus for the last inter-valuation period, with prescribed adjustments and separate computation from other businesses.
      • Non-life insurers use profit before tax and appropriations per statutory accounts, with specified add-backs and a permitted deduction for reserves for unexpired risks as prescribed.
      • Special treatment applies when inter-valuation periods exceed twelve months regarding tax credit availability and averaging of TDS payments; the statutory cross-reference differs between drafts.
      • Terminology differences between the Bill and the Act text (e.g., "reliable" vs "more reliable") may affect the standard for allocating global income of non-residents.
      • Several provisions rely on "as may be prescribed" or cross-references to other sections and statutes, so final operational clarity depends on enacted section numbering and delegated rules not included in the documents.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE XIV - INSURANCE BUSINESS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax