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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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 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)

      FeatureDocument 1 (Act)Document 2 (Bill - Old)Practical Impact
      Title/Scope descriptionReads "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 orderingLists 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 labellingDefinitions 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 variantsUses 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

      ActsIncome Tax