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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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