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

      Reforming TDS on Interest Income : Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(ii) & 5(iii)] and 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. with Section 194A of the Income-tax Act,

      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

      Clause 393 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes to consolidate and modernize the framework for tax deduction at source (TDS) on various categories of payments, including interest other than interest on securities. The provisions under Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(ii) & 5(iii)] specifically address TDS on "interest other than interest on securities" when paid by certain specified persons. Furthermore, Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] lists out exceptions to TDS applicability, delineating circumstances where no deduction is required on such interest payments. These provisions are to be read in the context of, and compared with, the current regime under section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has long governed TDS on interest other than securities.

      The comparative analysis is essential because Section 194A is a critical provision affecting a wide range of taxpayers, including individuals, banks, co-operative societies, and various institutional entities. The proposed 2025 Bill seeks to streamline, clarify, and in some respects, expand or contract the TDS net, reflecting evolving policy priorities and administrative concerns. This commentary will provide a detailed examination of the new provisions, their objectives, operational mechanics, practical implications, and how they align with or diverge from the existing law.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective behind Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(ii) & 5(iii)] is to ensure efficient collection of tax at source on interest income, thereby reducing tax evasion and improving compliance. The legislative intent is to rationalize the TDS framework, introduce higher thresholds for certain classes of payees (notably senior citizens), and clarify the scope of exemptions, in line with both technological advancements (such as core banking solutions) and the changing landscape of financial intermediation.

      Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] serves as a carve-out, exempting specific classes of payees and payments from the rigors of TDS, where policy considerations or practical difficulties make such deduction unnecessary or counterproductive. The historical evolution of Section 194A demonstrates a similar approach-balancing revenue interests with administrative convenience and taxpayer relief.

      Detailed Analysis of the Relevant Provisions

      1. Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(ii) & 5(iii)]- Interest Other Than Interest on Securities

      Sl. No.Nature of IncomePayerRateThreshold Limit
      5(ii)Any income by way of interest other than interest on securities(a) A banking company;
      (b) A co-operative society carrying on the business of banking;
      (c) A post-office for a deposit made under a scheme notified by the Central Government
      Rates in force(a) Rs. 1,00,000 (senior citizen);
      (b) Rs. 50,000 (others)
      5(iii)Any income being interest other than interest on securitiesSpecified person [other than person in 5(ii).C]Rates in forceRs. 10,000

      Key Features:

      • The TDS obligation arises when the interest income is credited or paid, whichever is earlier.
      • For banks, co-operative banks, and post offices, higher threshold limits are set, especially for senior citizens.
      • For other specified persons, a lower threshold of Rs. 10,000 applies.
      • "Specified person" is not defined in the extracted text but typically refers to persons notified or as defined elsewhere in the Act or accompanying rules.
      • There is a branch-based computation of the threshold where core banking solutions are not adopted.
      • There is a mechanism for adjustment of excess or deficient deduction within the tax year.

      2. Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] - Exemptions from TDS on Interest Other Than Securities

      Sl. No.Provision for TDSCondition for No Deduction
      7Interest other than Interest on securities referred to in section 393(1)[Table: Sl. No. 5(ii) and 5(iii)].(a) Interest income credited or paid to:
      • (i) Any banking company;
      • (ii) Any financial corporation established by or under a Central/State/Provincial Act;
      • (iii) Life Insurance Corporation of India;
      • (iv) Unit Trust of India;
      • (v) Any company or co-operative society carrying on the business of insurance;
      • (vi) Such other institution, association or body as notified by the Central Government before 1st April 2020.
      (b) Interest income credited or paid:
      • (i) By a co-operative society (other than a co-operative bank) to a member thereof;
      • (ii) By a co-operative society to another co-operative society;
      • (iii) In respect of deposits with a primary agricultural credit society/primary credit society/co-operative land mortgage or development bank;
      • (iv) In respect of deposits (other than time deposits made on or after 1st July 1995) with a co-operative society (other than a co-operative bank) engaged in banking, where turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crore in the preceding year.
      (c) Interest income credited or paid:
      • (i) By the Central Government under any tax-related Act;
      • (ii) In respect of deposits under any scheme notified by the Central Government;
      • (iii) In respect of deposits (other than time deposits made on or after 1st July 1995) with a banking company;
      • (iv) By way of interest on compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal where the amount does not exceed Rs. 50,000 in the year;
      • (v) Or payable by infrastructure capital company/fund, infrastructure debt fund, public sector company, scheduled bank in relation to zero coupon bond issued on or after 1st June 2005;
      • (vi) As referred to in Schedule V (Table: Sl. No. 3);
      • (vii) By a firm to a partner of the firm.

      Key Features:

      • Broadly mirrors the exemption list section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
      • Includes both institutional and certain individual arrangements (e.g., co-operative society to member).
      • Thresholds and conditions are specified, especially for co-operative societies and interest on compensation.
      • Notifications by Government for further exemptions are limited to those issued before 1 April 2020, thereby freezing the scope for future ad-hoc notifications.

      Practical Implications

      1. For Payers (Deductors)

      • Threshold Management: The increased threshold for senior citizens (Rs. 1,00,000 under the Bill vs. Rs. 50,000 under the 1961 Act; noting the recent amendment) reduces the compliance burden for banks, co-operative societies, and post offices, and provides relief to elderly depositors.
      • Identification of Specified Persons: The Bill distinguishes between payers, requiring careful scrutiny of whether the payer falls under the higher threshold (bank, co-operative bank, post office) or the lower threshold (other specified person).
      • Branch-wise vs. Entity-wise Computation: The provision for branch-level computation unless core banking is adopted remains, ensuring that the benefit of threshold is not unduly multiplied.
      • Adjustment Provisions: The ability to adjust excess or deficient deductions within the year is retained, providing administrative flexibility.
      • Exemption Management: The list of exemptions is detailed and largely mirrors the existing regime, but deductors must remain vigilant about turnover criteria (e.g., co-operative societies with turnover not exceeding Rs. 50 crore).

      2. For Payees (Recipients of Interest)

      • Senior Citizens: The increased threshold for TDS on interest income is a significant relief, reducing the incidence of refunds and the need for filing declarations u/s 197A.
      • Co-operative Society Members: Members of co-operative societies (other than co-operative banks) continue to enjoy exemption for interest income, subject to turnover limits.
      • Institutional Recipients: Banks, insurance companies, LIC, UTI, and notified entities remain outside the TDS net for interest income, preserving the status quo.
      • Motor Accident Compensation: The exemption for interest on compensation up to Rs. 50,000 per year reduces hardship for accident victims.

      3. For Tax Administration

      • Clarity and Streamlining: The Bill consolidates TDS provisions in a single clause, with clear tables and cross-references, aiding easier administration.
      • Reduced Scope for Ad Hoc Exemptions: By freezing the power to notify new exempted entities after 1 April 2020, the Bill aims to bring stability and predictability to the exemption regime.

      Comparative Analysis with section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      1. Structure and Approach

      • The 2025 Bill adopts a tabular, itemized approach, making the provisions more accessible and less ambiguous compared to the narrative style of Section 194A.
      • The Bill brings all TDS provisions under a single umbrella, as opposed to the scattered approach in the 1961 Act.

      2. Thresholds

      • Senior Citizens: The Bill increases the threshold for senior citizens to Rs. 1,00,000 (from Rs. 50,000 in the existing law, though the 2025 Finance Act has amended this to Rs. 1,00,000 as well), reflecting inflation and the need for taxpayer relief.
      • Others: The threshold for non-senior citizens is Rs. 50,000 (banks/co-operative banks/post office) and Rs. 10,000 (others), which aligns with the recently amended Section 194A.

      3. Scope of Payers

      • Both the Bill and Section 194A extend TDS obligations to individuals and HUFs whose turnover exceeds specified limits, reducing the risk of evasion through business structuring.
      • The Bill's use of "specified person" and "any person" is broadly consistent with the "any person, not being an individual or HUF" language of Section 194A, with the added clarity of tabular presentation.

      4. Exemptions

      • The list of exemptions under Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] closely mirrors Section 194A(3), with minor clarifications and a freeze on new notifications post-1 April 2020.
      • The turnover-based exemption for co-operative societies is retained, and the conditions for exemption are more precisely articulated in the Bill.

      5. Procedural Aspects

      • The Bill introduces or retains mechanisms for branch-wise threshold computation, adjustment of TDS within the year, and delivery of declarations for non-deduction, mirroring best practices from the existing regime.
      • The Bill's clarity on time of deduction (credit or payment, whichever is earlier) and inclusion of suspense account credits aligns with Section 194A(1) and its Explanation.

      6. Policy and Administrative Rationale

      • The Bill's approach reflects a desire to modernize and rationalize the TDS framework, reduce administrative friction, and provide greater relief to senior citizens and small depositors.
      • The freezing of new notifications for exemptions is a notable policy shift, aiming for stability and avoidance of ad hoc or politically motivated carve-outs.

      7. Comparative Table: Key Features

      Featuresection 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(ii) & 5(iii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      ScopeInterest (other than securities) to residentsInterest (other than securities) to residents
      PayersAll except individuals/HUFs (with turnover exception)Banking companies, co-op societies, post office, specified persons
      Threshold - Bank/Co-op/Post OfficeRs. 50,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 for senior citizens)Rs. 50,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 for senior citizens)
      Threshold - OthersRs. 10,000Rs. 10,000
      Time of DeductionCredit or payment, whichever earlierCredit or payment, whichever earlier
      Branch Aggregation RuleYes (if no core banking solution)Yes (if no core banking solution)
      ExemptionsBanks, LIC, UTI, insurance cos., notified institutions, co-ops (turnover-based), partners, government, etc.Banks, LIC, UTI, insurance cos., notified institutions, co-ops (turnover-based), partners, government, etc.
      Declaration for Nil TDSYes (Form 15G/15H)Yes (prescribed form and timelines)
      Adjustment of TDSYesYes
      Suspense AccountDeemed as payee's accountDeemed as payee's account
      Central Govt. Notification PowersYesYes

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues in Interpretation

      • Definition of "Specified Person": The Bill refers to "specified person" without providing a definition in the extracted text, which could lead to interpretive disputes unless clarified in the Act or rules.
      • Overlap with Other Provisions: Careful cross-referencing is required to ensure that the correct TDS provision is applied, especially where payments may fall under multiple categories (e.g., interest cum compensation).
      • Turnover Certification: The requirement for co-operative societies to determine turnover for exemption eligibility may impose an additional compliance burden.
      • Technological Implementation: The branch-wise vs. entity-wise computation of thresholds may pose practical challenges for entities with legacy IT systems.

       Conclusion

      Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 5(ii) & 5(iii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 7] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represent a thoughtful evolution of the TDS regime for interest other than securities. By adopting a tabular, comprehensive, and threshold-based approach, the Bill seeks to balance revenue protection with taxpayer convenience, particularly for senior citizens and small depositors. The exemptions are carefully delineated, with a clear policy to avoid future ad hoc carve-outs. The provisions largely align with the existing Section 194A, with some enhancements in clarity, threshold levels, and administrative mechanics. Going forward, it would be beneficial for the legislature or the tax administration to issue detailed clarifications on ambiguous terms (such as "specified person") and provide robust guidance on compliance procedures, especially for co-operative societies and financial institutions.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax