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

      Evolution of TDS on Interest on Securities : Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(i)] & 393(4)[Table: S.No. 6] of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 193 of Income Tax Act, 1961

      21 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025  

      Introduction

      The mechanism of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interest on securities has long been a pivotal feature of the Indian income tax framework, serving as a tool for early tax collection and compliance monitoring. Section 193 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has, for decades, governed the deduction of tax on interest on securities paid to residents. With the introduction of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, there is a comprehensive attempt to consolidate, rationalize, and modernize TDS provisions. This commentary focuses on Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(i)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 6] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, providing a detailed analysis of their scope, operation, and implications, and compares them with the existing regime u/s 193 of the 1961 Act.

      Objective and Purpose 

      The legislative intent behind TDS provisions on interest on securities is threefold:

      1. Ensuring Advance Tax Collection: By mandating deduction at source, the law seeks to ensure that tax is collected at the earliest possible stage, reducing the risk of evasion or default.
      2. Widening the Tax Base: TDS acts as a check on the reporting of income, compelling both payers and recipients to account for such income in their returns.
      3. Administrative Efficiency: Centralizing the collection of tax at the point of payment simplifies compliance monitoring for the tax authorities.

      The 2025 Bill aims to further these objectives by refining the categories of exempted payments, updating threshold limits, and harmonizing the language and structure of the law.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(i)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 6] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      I. Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(i)] - TDS on Interest on Securities

      1. Scope of Coverage:
        The provision applies to "any person" responsible for paying to a resident "any income by way of interest on securities." This is a broad formulation, capturing all payers, irrespective of their status (government, company, institution, or individual), provided the payment is to a resident.
      2. Threshold Limit:
        The threshold for deduction is set at Rs. 10,000 in the aggregate during the tax year. No TDS is required if the total interest paid or credited does not exceed this amount.
      3. Rate and Timing:
        TDS is to be deducted at the "rates in force" at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. This aligns with the general principle of TDS timing under the Act.
      4. Reference to Exemptions (Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 6]):
        The operation of this clause is subject to the exemptions enumerated in sub-section (4), which are critical for understanding the practical application of the TDS requirement.

      II. Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 6] - Exemptions from TDS on Interest on Securities

      This sub-section provides a table of circumstances where no TDS is required, specifically referencing S.No. 5(i) of the main table. The exemptions are as follows:

      1. Interest Payable on Specified Instruments:
        • National Development Bonds
        • Debentures issued by specified institutions, authorities, or persons as notified by the Central Government
        • Any security of the Central or State Government, other than:
          • 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003
          • 7.75% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2018
          • Floating Rate Savings Bonds, 2020 (Taxable)
          • Any other security as notified by the Central Government
      2. Interest Payable to Specified Entities:
        • Life Insurance Corporation of India, in respect of securities owned or with full beneficial interest
        • General Insurance Corporation of India or any of the four companies formed under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, in respect of securities owned or with full beneficial interest
        • Any other insurer, in respect of securities owned or with full beneficial interest
        • A "business trust", in respect of any securities, by a special purpose vehicle referred to in Schedule V (Table: Sl. No. 3)

      Comparative Analysis with Section 193 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      1. Thresholds and Rates

      • Threshold: Both the 2025 Bill and Section 193 now prescribe a Rs. 10,000 threshold for deduction, reflecting an alignment and rationalization of limits.
      • Rate: Both refer to "rates in force," ensuring that TDS rates are dynamically linked to the prevailing rates as notified in the Finance Act or relevant notifications.

      2. Scope and Wording

      • Payer: Both regimes apply to "any person" responsible for payment, maintaining a broad net.
      • Payee: The focus remains on payments to residents. Non-resident payments are governed by separate provisions (e.g., Section 195 in the 1961 Act; separate tables in the 2025 Bill).

      3. Timing of Deduction

      Both provisions require deduction at the earlier of credit or payment, including credit to suspense accounts. This is a critical anti-avoidance feature, ensuring that TDS cannot be deferred by crediting to intermediary accounts.

      4. Exemptions and Carve-Outs

      This area reveals both continuity and modernization:

      1. Instrument-Based Exemptions:
        • Both laws exempt interest on National Development Bonds, certain notified debentures, and most government securities, except for specified taxable bonds (8%, 7.75%, Floating Rate, or as notified).
        • The 2025 Bill consolidates these exemptions into a more streamlined table, referencing the power of the Central Government to notify further exemptions, mirroring the approach in Section 193.
      2. Entity-Based Exemptions:
        • Interest payable to LIC, GIC, specified insurers, and business trusts is exempt in both regimes, with wording modernized in the 2025 Bill for clarity and to reflect the evolution of financial products (e.g., explicit reference to "business trusts").
      3. Additional Exemptions in Section 193:
        • Section 193 contains some nuanced exemptions (e.g., for certain Gold Bonds held by individuals, subject to value limits and declarations) that are not expressly replicated in the 2025 Bill's main table, possibly reflecting the obsolescence of some instruments.
        • Section 193 includes a specific exemption for interest on debentures of widely held companies paid to individuals/HUFs (up to Rs. 10,000, paid by account payee cheque). The 2025 Bill appears to focus on "interest on securities" more generally, with such nuances likely subsumed under broader exemptions or addressed elsewhere.

      5. Procedural and Compliance Aspects

      • Declaration for Non-Deduction: Both laws permit individuals and certain entities to file declarations for non-deduction if their estimated total income is below the taxable limit (Section 197A in the 1961 Act; Clause 393(6) in the 2025 Bill), though the procedural mechanics have been modernized in the Bill.
      • Reporting and Delivery: The 2025 Bill explicitly requires the payer to deliver the declaration to the tax authority by the 7th of the following month, emphasizing timely compliance.

      6. Modernization and Rationalization

      • The 2025 Bill's approach is to consolidate and clarify, grouping exemptions and obligations in structured tables, and removing archaic references (e.g., to now-defunct bonds or obsolete procedural requirements).
      • The Bill provides for the Central Government's power to notify new exemptions, ensuring the law remains adaptable to changes in financial products and market realities.

      7. Potential Ambiguities and Issues

      • Definition of "Interest on Securities": Both laws rely on the definition in the main Act, but as financial instruments evolve, the possibility of interpretative disputes remains (e.g., whether certain hybrid instruments qualify).
      • Overlap with Other Provisions: The Bill's structure attempts to minimize overlaps by clarifying precedence (e.g., if tax is deducted under one provision, it is not to be deducted again under another).
      • Notification Power: Both regimes vest significant discretion in the Central Government to notify further exemptions, which can lead to uncertainty if not exercised transparently and timeously.

      Practical Implications

      For Payers (Issuers of Securities, Government, Companies, etc.)

      • The Rs. 10,000 threshold simplifies compliance for small interest payments, reducing the administrative burden.
      • The need to track aggregate payments across the year, and to apply the correct rate at the right time, remains a key compliance obligation.
      • Entities paying interest on exempted instruments or to exempted entities must maintain proper documentation to justify non-deduction.
      • The obligation to process declarations for non-deduction and to report them to tax authorities is reinforced under the new regime.

      For Recipients (Investors, Insurers, Trusts, Individuals)

      • Investors in exempt instruments or entities (e.g., LIC, GIC, business trusts) benefit from direct receipt of full interest without TDS, improving cash flows.
      • Individuals and HUFs with low income can avoid TDS by filing requisite declarations, though must ensure aggregate receipts do not exceed the taxable threshold.
      • Business trusts and insurers continue to enjoy favorable treatment, reflecting policy support for long-term savings and financial stability.

      For Tax Authorities

      • The consolidation and simplification of exemptions and thresholds should improve monitoring and reduce disputes.
      • The explicit reporting requirements for declarations and the emphasis on timely deduction and deposit of TDS provide clearer audit trails.

      Comparative Table: Key Features

      FeatureSection 193 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(i)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 6]

      of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      ThresholdRs. 10,000 (recently increased)Rs. 10,000
      RateRates in forceRates in force
      Exempt InstrumentsDetailed list, with periodic notificationsConsolidated table, with notification power
      Exempt EntitiesLIC, GIC, insurers, business trusts, etc.Same, with modernized language
      Procedural RequirementsDeclarations, reporting, suspense account ruleDeclarations, reporting, suspense account rule
      ModernizationLayered, historical, some obsolete referencesConsolidated, streamlined, adaptable

      Conclusion

      The TDS regime on interest on securities, as updated in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, largely continues the policy and structural framework of Section 193 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with notable improvements in clarity, consolidation, and adaptability. The alignment of threshold limits, the clear statement of exempted instruments and entities, and the emphasis on procedural compliance reflect a mature and responsive legislative approach. While the core principles remain unchanged, the 2025 Bill's structure is more user-friendly and future-proof, positioning the TDS framework to better handle the complexities of modern financial markets. Stakeholders should welcome the rationalization, though continued vigilance is required to ensure that the notification powers are exercised with transparency, and that the law adapts to evolving financial instruments without ambiguity.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax