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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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