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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    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 LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome 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.

    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