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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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