Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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-XV "DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIA, CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, SUBSCRIPTION TO CERTAIN EQUITY SHARES, ETC." 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-XV DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIA, CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, SUBSCRIPTION TO CERTAIN EQUITY SHARES, ETC.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The Bill text reproduces Schedule XV (see section 123) providing a catalogue of payments and contributions that qualify for deductions for purposes of section 123 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version). It matters to individual taxpayers, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), employees, employers, mutual funds, public companies and specified financing institutions. Document does not state an effective date beyond its placement in the Bill.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule XV (see section 123) to the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version. The Schedule enumerates categories of payments which "qualify as deduction" for purposes of section 123 of the Bill. It covers life insurance premia, deferred annuity payments, contributions to provident, pension and superannuation funds, specified government-notified schemes, long-term deposits, certain subscriptions to equity/debentures and mutual fund units, tuition fees for two children, and payments for purchase/construction of residential house property (subject to paragraph 3). The Schedule contains rules limiting deduction for insurance premia (paragraph 2), defines the scope of amounts for house purchase/construction (paragraph 3), sets conditions under which previously allowed deductions are withdrawn and treated as income (paragraphs 4-5), and provides interpretative definitions (paragraph 6).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule identifies specific categories of payments/deposits made in the tax year that qualify as deductions for section 123. Key categories include:

      • Life insurance premium on life of the individual, spouse and any child; HUF coverage for members (clause 1(a)).
      • Payments under deferred annuity contracts (subject to conditions) (clause 1(b)).
      • Salary deductions by or on behalf of the Government for securing deferred annuity (20% of salary) (clause 1(c)).
      • Contributions to provident funds (including those under Provident Funds Act, 1925, and Central Government notified provident funds) (clauses 1(d)-(f)).
      • Contributions to recognised superannuation funds (clause 1(g)).
      • Subscriptions to notified securities/deposit schemes and to savings certificates (clause 1(h)-(i)).
      • Contributions/participation in specified unit-linked insurance plans and mutual fund/pension fund schemes (clauses 1(j)-(n), (m)).
      • Specified term deposits with banks and post offices, Senior Citizen Savings Scheme deposits, NABARD bonds, and long-term housing finance schemes (clauses 1(s)-(v)).
      • Tuition fees for full-time education of any two children (clause 1(q)).
      • Expenditure for purchase or construction of a residential house property chargeable to tax under "Income from house property" (clause 1(r)), subject to paragraph 3 restrictions.
      • Subscription to equity shares/debentures forming part of eligible capital issues approved by the Board and units of specified mutual funds (clause 1(z)).

      Interpretation

      Paragraph 2 prescribes quantitative ceilings on insurance premia deductible: (a) up to 20% of actual capital sum assured for policies issued on or before 31-03-2012; (b) up to 10% for policies issued on or after 01-04-2012; and (c) up to 15% where policy issued on/after 01-04-2013 covering a person with disability or certain specified diseases. "Actual capital sum assured" is defined narrowly to exclude return of premiums and bonuses (paragraph 2(2)). Paragraph 6 provides definitions (e.g., "Administrator," "contribution," "insurance," "Life Insurance Corporation," "public company," "security," "specified company," "transfer," "eligible issue of capital," "public financial institution") and cross-references to other statutes.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Paragraph 3 delimits eligible payments for house purchase/construction; it expressly includes instalments, repayments of specified borrowings, and transfer costs, and expressly excludes admission fees, cost of shares, initial deposits for membership, post-completion alterations/repairs, and expenditures deductible u/s 22. Paragraphs 4 and 5 establish events that cause withdrawal of earlier deductions (e.g., surrender/termination, premature transfer, sale of subscribed shares within specified holding periods) and set out the tax treatment (deeming adjustments to income) when disallowance conditions are met.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual pays premium for a life policy issued in 2014 on his own life; deductible premium is limited to 10% of the actual capital sum assured unless the policy covers a person with disability (in which case 15% limit may apply). (This follows paragraph 2.)
      • Example 2: An assessee subscribes to an eligible issue of capital approved by the Board under clause (z). If the assessee sells the shares within three years of acquisition, the deduction will be withdrawn and the aggregate of deductions allowed earlier will be deemed income in the year of sale (paragraphs 4 and table item 4).
      • Example 3: An assessee withdraws a Senior Citizen Savings Scheme deposit before five years; the withdrawn amount (excluding previously taxed interest and certain amounts received on death) is deemed income in the year of withdrawal (paragraph 5, table item 1).

      Interplay

      The Schedule explicitly cross-references multiple statutes and contingent notifications by the Central Government. It depends on notifications for bringing particular schemes/funds/instruments within its scope and interacts with other income-tax provisions by specifying which items are excluded (e.g., section 22 deductions) and by using cross-references (e.g., definition of "transfer" includes transactions referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). The document does not state rules or notifications that give further detail; such delegated instruments will determine operational scope.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      Comparison basis: SCHEDULE-XV as reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) versus SCHEDULE-XV as reproduced from the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). The Bill text (Document 2) is the primary source for the detailed commentary below; differences noted here are limited to those apparent in the two texts provided.

      • Cross-references for "security": Document 1 defines "security" by reference to section 2(f) of the Government Securities Act, 2006. Document 2 defines "security" by reference to section 2(2) of the Public Debt Act, 1944.
        • Practical impact: The two statutes have different scopes and drafting histories. A shift in cross-reference can alter which instruments qualify as "security" for the Schedule. Tax practitioners and taxpayers must check the precise statutory definitions in the referenced Acts to determine whether particular government or public debt instruments qualify for deduction-linked provisions; this may change the set of eligible instruments.
      • "Eligible issue of capital" cross-reference: Document 1 ties the term to section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Document 2 ties the term to section 135(9) (numeration as in the Bill text).
        • Practical impact:Different sectional references may point to materially different criteria for what constitutes an eligible issue (for example, the type of business or use of proceeds). Unless the two cross-references are substantively identical (which cannot be assumed), taxpayers subscribing to equity/debenture issues will need to verify which business activities qualify under the Bill's reference. This affects eligibility for the deduction under clause (z).
      • Wording and sequencing differences in some clauses: Several clauses (for example clauses (i), (l), (m), (n)) show minor drafting variations - differences such as "as may be notified by the Central Government" versus "as notified by the Central Government," or rearrangement of sub-clauses listing Administrator/specified company.
        • Practical impact: Most such changes are stylistic and unlikely to change substantive outcomes. However, subtle differences in qualification language (e.g., "as may be notified" v. "as notified") could affect delegated power interpretations if tested. Practitioners should note exact drafting when advising on whether a scheme has been validly brought within the Schedule by notification.
      • Headings and minor editorial changes: The heading for paragraph 4 differs slightly: Document 1-"Disallowance of and taxation of deduction already allowed" versus Document 2-"Withdrawal of deduction and taxation of deduction already allowed" (or "Withdrawal of deduction and taxation..." depending on placement).
        • Practical impact: Primarily editorial. The substance of paragraph 4 (conditions for denial/reversal and taxation on fulfilment of specified conditions) appears consistent across both texts provided.
      • Interpretation clause cross-references: Document 1 references the Government Securities Act, 2006 and section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act; Document 2 references the Public Debt Act, 1944 and section 135(9). Document 2 also cites "section 2(2) of the Public Debt Act, 1944" specifically for "security."
        • Practical impact:As above, these cross-reference changes can affect the scope of defined terms and therefore the reach of deductions. They may create compliance uncertainty until clarified by legislative history, explanatory memorandum, rules or notifications.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance: Taxpayers must track holding periods and conditions set out in paragraph 4 to avoid clawback of deductions (e.g., insurance surrender, early sale of eligible shares, premature withdrawal of term deposits).
      • Documentation: Record of policy issue date, capital sum assured, disability certification (where higher threshold applies), loan/repayment documentation for housing finance, notifications referenced in Schedule, and Board approvals for eligible capital issues will be necessary to substantiate deductions.
      • Interpretive uncertainty: Several entries depend on delegated notifications and cross-statutory definitions (e.g., "security," "eligible issue of capital"). Until clarifying notifications or rules are issued, taxpayers and advisers will need to consult the referenced Acts and any Ministry/Board notifications.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Schedule lists specific categories of payments that qualify for deduction u/s 123, with detailed ceilings for insurance premia and conditions for housing payments.
      • Withdrawal/recapture rules are explicit: termination, surrender, sale within specified periods or premature withdrawal may convert previously allowed deductions into taxable income.
      • Definitions and cross-references (notably "security" and "eligible issue of capital") are determinative of scope and may materially affect eligibility; the Bill cites particular external Acts.
      • Many categories rely on Central Government notifications or Board approvals; practical application requires monitoring of such instruments.
      • Taxpayers should maintain contemporaneous evidence: policy documents, notification texts, loan/repayment records, purchase/transfer documents, and proof of holding periods.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE-XV DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIA, CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, SUBSCRIPTION TO CERTAIN EQUITY SHARES, ETC.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax