Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of SCHEDULE XVI "PERMITTED MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS" 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 XVI - PERMITTED MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The provided documents are two versions of SCHEDULE-XVI (Permitted Modes of Investment or Deposits) related to section 350 of the Income-tax legislation as presented in (a) "SCHEDULE-XVI of Income-tax Act, 2025" (Document 1) and (b) "SCHEDULE-XVI of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version" (Document 2). Both list permissible investment/deposit modes for registered non-profit / charitable or religious trusts or institutions. The differences between the two texts are principally editorial and ordering/wording differences and a few numbering/clauses variations; they do not indicate new substantive modes in the Old Version beyond those in the Act version provided. Affected parties: charitable/religious trusts, registered non-profit organisations, tax administrators and financial intermediaries. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: See section 350 (referenced) and the schedule title SCHEDULE XVI. The schedule specifies the "modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in section 350" and therefore regulates the forms in which corpus or funds of charitable/religious trusts and institutions (or registered non-profit organisations) may be maintained to retain tax benefits or compliance with section 350. The schedule enumerates specific permitted instruments, investments, deposits and certain transitional and historical exceptions. Definitions are provided within the schedule (see paragraph providing definitions such as "long-term finance", "public company", "urban infrastructure", "Immovable property", "incubatee", "incubator").

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

The schedule enumerates discrete permitted modes of investment/deposit for monies u/s 350. Coverage: central government small savings instruments (savings certificates, small savings schemes), Post Office Savings Bank, scheduled banks and cooperative banks, Unit Trust of India units, securities issued by Central/State Governments, government-guaranteed debentures, investments/deposits with public sector companies (with transitional deeming rules if company ceases to be a public sector company), bonds issued by specified financial corporations or public companies engaged in long-term housing/urban infrastructure finance, immovable property, IDBI deposits, units of specified mutual funds (Schedule VII entries), transfers to Public Account of India, deposits with housing/urban development authorities, equity shares of depositories, specified investments by recognised stock exchanges, investments by payment system entities in specified companies, incubator/incubatee investments, shares of National Skill Development Corporation, debt instruments of RBI-registered infrastructure finance companies, Sovereign Gold Bonds ("Stock Certificate" definition reference), units of Powergrid Infrastructure Investment Trust, shares in a public sector company, historical corpus exceptions (assets forming corpus as at specified historical dates), accretions by bonus shares, debentures acquired before specified historical dates, voluntary contributions maintained as specified tangible assets, short-term holding exception for non-specified assets, and funds representing business profits under specified conditions.

Interpretation

The schedule is primarily a closed list of permissible forms; interpretive principle implied: only these listed forms (and those falling within the enumerated transitional/historical carve-outs) qualify as compliant with section 350 requirements. The definitions provided constrain certain terms (for example, "long-term finance" defined by a five-year minimum repayment term, "Immovable property" excluding most machinery/plant). Legislative intent as indicated by the text: to allow a mix of conservative, government-backed, regulated financial instruments and specified sectoral investments while controlling diversion into unregulated assets; to preserve historical corpus exceptions; and to permit certain strategic sectoral investments (e.g., incubators, digital payments infrastructure, infrastructure finance).

Exceptions/Provisos

The schedule includes multiple temporal and condition-based exceptions: (a) investments in public sector company shares remain covered for three years after the company ceases to be a public sector company; (b) other deposit/investment in such company remains covered until repayable; (c) assets not specified in clauses (1)-(30) are permitted only if not held beyond one year from the end of the tax year in which acquired (Document 1 wording differs slightly-see differences table); (d) corpus preservation exceptions for assets held on 1 June 1973 and 1 June 1998; (e) certain assets acquired before 1 March 1983; (f) business profits may be retained only if separate books are maintained where other income exists.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A registered non-profit purchases Central Government savings certificates and deposits surplus funds in a scheduled bank: these are permitted under clauses (1) and (3).
  • Example 2: A trust acquires equity shares of a public sector company that later becomes disinvested and ceases to qualify as a public sector company; the trust's shareholding is deemed to remain a permitted investment for three years from the date of change (clause (7)(a)).
  • Example 3: A charitable institution receives a painting as a voluntary contribution and maintains it as part of corpus pending a Board notification: clause (30)/(32) allows voluntary contributions maintained in forms such as furniture or jewellery if specified by Board notification. (Note: reliance on Board notification is required.)

Interplay

The schedule cross-references: Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959; Depositories Act, 1996; Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956; Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007; Companies Act, 2013; Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964; Schedule VII (mutual fund schemes); Sovereign Gold Bonds Scheme notification G.S.R. 827(E) dated 30 October 2015; and section 32(e) (as corrected). Interaction with these statutes and notifications determines eligibility/qualification of instruments and entities named. Specific practical interpretive issues: Not stated in the document (e.g., guidance on valuation, treatment of hybrid instruments, or applicable timelines for Board notifications).

Differences between Document 1 (Schedule-XVI of Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Schedule-XVI of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version)

Feature Document 1 (Act) Document 2 (Bill - Old) Practical Impact
Title/Scope description Reads "FORMS OR MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS BY A REGISTERED NON PROFIT ORGANISATION". Reads "FORMS OR MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS BY A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST OR INSTITUTION". Potential drafting consistency/coverage difference: Act version uses broader term "registered non profit organisation" while Bill refers to "charitable or religious trust or institution". Practical effect depends on statutory definition of "registered non profit organisation" vs. "charitable or religious trust or institution" elsewhere - Not stated in the document.
Numbering and ordering Lists items (1)-(32) with definitions at paragraph 2 (a)-(f). Lists items (1)-(32) then includes clause (33) as the definitions block; textual wording slightly varies (e.g., references to "herein referred to" vs "hereafter referred to"). Primarily editorial; no substantive change to listed permissible modes is apparent. Practical impact: negligible on permitted modes; clarity/interpretation possibly affected by drafting differences but core content substantially same.
Specific clause differences (examples) Includes item (30) "voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture or any other article as the Board may, by notification specify" as clause (30) and item (31) concerning assets not in clauses (1)-(30) held up to one year from end of tax year. Order differs: item (32) in Document 2 is the "voluntary contributions..." clause and item (30) in Document 2 refers to assets not being investments held after expiry of one year from end of tax year. Also Document 2 contains minor textual corrections (notes indicating correction of "section 32 (1)(e)" to "section 32 (e)"). These are drafting/numbering and editorial corrections. Practical impact: none substantive, but numbering differences require caution when citing specific sub-paragraph numbers; reference to section 32(e) correction clarifies intended cross-reference.
Definitions block placement and labelling Definitions under "2. Interpretation" enumerated (a)-(f). Definitions included at the end as "(33) In this schedule,- (a) ... (f) ..." with slightly different heading style. No substantive difference in definitions themselves. Practical impact limited to citation conventions within drafting-users must ensure referencing correct clause numbering for each version.
Minor wording variants Uses phrasing such as "herein referred to as investor" and "herein referred to as investee". Uses "hereafter referred to as investor" and "hereafter referred to as investee"; contains textual spacing and punctuation variations and an explicit errata note about corrections. Editorial only. Practical impact: none on legal substance, but the errata notes in Document 2 improve textual accuracy.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Trustees and non-profit administrators must ensure corpus monies are invested only in the enumerated modes or within the short-term holding exception; reliance on non-specified investments beyond the one-year grace risks non-compliance with section 350 conditions. Not stated in the document: procedural sanctions or consequences for non-compliance.
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies need for records evidencing nature of instruments (e.g., government certificates, bank deposits, share certificates, notifications of permitted Board-specified tangible assets), dates of acquisition to apply short-term holding rule and historical corpus cut-off dates, and documentation of separate books of accounts where business profits and other income co-exist.

Key Takeaways

  • SCHEDULE-XVI provides a closed/enumerated list of permitted investment/deposit modes for monies u/s 350, privileging government-backed and regulated instruments and certain sectoral investments.
  • Both documents substantially list the same modes; differences are largely editorial, numbering and minor wording variations, and a title wording variance (registered non-profit organisation vs. charitable or religious trust/institution).
  • Transitional exceptions (public sector company treatment, historical corpus dates, pre-1983 debentures) preserve earlier holdings and prevent retrospective disallowance of legacy corpus assets.
  • Short-term holding exception permits non-specified assets to be held only up to one year from the end of the tax year in which acquired (wording differs slightly between versions; practitioners should confirm the authoritative version before citation).
  • Definitions such as "long-term finance" (five-year minimum) and "Immovable property" (excluding most machinery/plant) narrow the scope of qualifying instruments.
  • Practical compliance requires careful record-keeping, attention to cross-references (e.g., section 32(e), statutory definitions), and monitoring of statutory/Board notifications referenced for certain asset categories.
  • Errata in the Bill (corrections from "section 32(1)(e)" to "section 32(e)") and minor drafting differences mean practitioners should use the enacted/official Gazette text for authoritative citation.

Full Text:

SCHEDULE XVI - PERMITTED MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS

Topics

Acts Income Tax