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

      Unifying TDS on Lottery-Related Payments : Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 4] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 194G of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      23 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Introduction

      Clause 393 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a comprehensive overhaul of the provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) in India, consolidating, rationalizing, and updating the framework for withholding tax on various types of payments. Of particular interest is Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 4], which deals with TDS on income credited or paid to persons involved in the stocking, distribution, purchase, or sale of lottery tickets, by way of commission, remuneration, or prize. This provision is the proposed legislative successor to Section 194G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 194G, as it stands in the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a long-standing provision that has regulated TDS on commission and related payments in the lottery business since its introduction in 1991. Over the years, Section 194G has undergone amendments, particularly in threshold limits and rates, to adapt to evolving economic and administrative considerations. The present commentary provides a detailed clause-wise analysis of Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 4] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, explores its legislative intent, practical implications, and challenges, and undertakes a comparative analysis with the extant Section 194G of the 1961 Act. The commentary further situates these changes in the broader context of the Indian TDS regime and the policy objectives sought to be achieved.

      2. Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 393(3) [Table: S.No. 4] and Section 194G is to ensure the collection of tax at the point of payment or credit of commission, remuneration, or prize to persons involved in the lottery business. The rationale for such a provision is twofold:

      • Plugging Tax Evasion: The lottery business, owing to its cash-intensive and multi-layered distribution structure, is susceptible to tax evasion. By mandating TDS at the source, the legislature seeks to bring such income within the tax net, ensuring traceability and compliance.
      • Administrative Convenience: TDS provisions facilitate the advance collection of tax, reducing the burden of lump-sum payments at the time of filing returns and improving the government's cash flow.

      The legislative history of Section 194G reveals a consistent policy approach to keep pace with the evolving lottery industry. The Income Tax Bill, 2025, through Clause 393, seeks to rationalize, consolidate, and harmonize TDS provisions, removing ambiguities and aligning thresholds and rates with current economic conditions.

      3. Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 4] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      3.1. Statutory Text and Structure

      Clause 393(3) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, provides a tabular framework for TDS on payments to any person. Table S.No. 4 reads as follows:

      Any income, credited or paid to a person, who is or has been stocking, distributing, purchasing or selling lottery tickets, by way of commission, remuneration or prize (by whatever name called) on such tickets.
      • Payer: Any person.
      • Rate: 2%.
      • Threshold Limit: Rs. 20,000.

      The provision requires "any person" responsible for making such payments to deduct tax at the specified rate if the payment or aggregate payments exceed Rs. 20,000 in a tax year.

      3.2. Key Elements

      • Nature of Payment: The provision covers income "by way of commission, remuneration or prize (by whatever name called)" paid to persons involved in the stocking, distributing, purchasing, or selling of lottery tickets. The use of the phrase "by whatever name called" ensures that the provision has a wide ambit and cannot be circumvented by mere nomenclature.
      • Payer: The obligation is cast on "any person" making such payment, which includes individuals, companies, firms, HUFs, AOPs, BOIs, etc., without exception.
      • Threshold: TDS is applicable only if the payment or aggregate payments in a financial year exceed Rs. 20,000. This threshold is designed to relieve small-scale participants from the compliance burden and focus enforcement on significant transactions.
      • Rate: The rate of deduction is specified as 2% of the income.
      • Timing: TDS is to be made at the time of credit to the account of the payee or at the time of payment, whichever is earlier, in cash or by cheque, draft, or any other mode.

      3.3. Explanation and Deeming Provision

      The provision incorporates a deeming fiction, similar to the Explanation u/s 194G, whereby credit to any account (including "Suspense Account" or any other name) is deemed to be credit to the account of the payee for the purpose of TDS. This is crucial to prevent deferral of TDS by crediting income to intermediary or suspense accounts.

      3.4. Exemption and Non-Applicability

      The Bill also provides for circumstances where TDS under this provision is not required. For instance, Clause 393(4) [Table: S.No. 4] specifies that if the income is of the nature of capital gain, no TDS is required on income in respect of units referred to in section 393(1)[Table: S.No. 4(i)]. However, this does not directly impact the lottery commission provision, which is not in the nature of capital gain.

      3.5. Compliance and Procedural Aspects

      The deductor is required to:

      • Deduct tax at the time of payment or credit, whichever is earlier.
      • Deposit the TDS with the government within the prescribed time.
      • Issue TDS certificates to the deductee.
      • File periodic TDS returns as prescribed.

      Non-compliance attracts interest, penalty, and potential disallowance of the expenditure under the Income Tax Act.

      3.6. Ambiguities and Issues

      • Aggregation Rule: The provision refers to "aggregate of amounts," but does not specify whether the threshold applies to each payer or across all payers. In practice, the threshold is applied per payer per payee per financial year.
      • Definition of "Commission, Remuneration, or Prize": While the language is broad, disputes may arise in cases where incentives are structured in complex ways (e.g., discounts, credit notes, indirect benefits).
      • Overlap with Winnings from Lottery: There is a separate TDS provision for winnings from lottery under Clause 393(3) [Table: S.No. 1]. The commission/prize to distributors is distinct from winnings paid to ticket holders, but care must be taken to avoid double deduction.

      4. Practical Implications

      4.1. Impact on Stakeholders

      • Lottery Distributors, Stockists, Agents: These intermediaries are directly affected as their income from the lottery business is subject to TDS. They must maintain proper documentation to claim credit for TDS deducted.
      • Payers (Lottery Organisers, State Governments, Master Distributors): They bear the compliance burden of deducting, depositing, and reporting TDS. Non-compliance can lead to penal consequences and disallowance of expenses.
      • Tax Authorities: The provision facilitates monitoring and enforcement, as TDS returns provide a digital trail of payments in the lottery business.

      4.2. Compliance Requirements

      • Timely deduction and deposit of TDS.
      • Issuance of TDS certificates (Form 16A or equivalent).
      • Filing of quarterly TDS returns (Form 26Q or equivalent).
      • Reconciliation of payments to ensure correct credit of TDS to the deductee.

      4.3. Procedural Safeguards

      The provision, by requiring TDS at the earliest of payment or credit, closes loopholes relating to deferment. The deeming fiction for credits to suspense accounts further strengthens the safeguard.

      4.4. Relief for Small Agents

      The threshold of Rs. 20,000 is intended to exclude small-time agents or occasional participants from the compliance net, focusing enforcement on significant players.

      5. Comparative Analysis with Section 194G of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      5.1. Textual Comparison

      FeatureClause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 4] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 194G of the Income-tax Act, 1961
      ApplicabilityAny income credited or paid to a person stocking, distributing, purchasing, or selling lottery tickets by way of commission, remuneration, or prize (by whatever name called)Any person responsible for paying to any person who is or has been stocking, distributing, purchasing, or selling lottery tickets, any income by way of commission, remuneration or prize (by whatever name called) on such tickets
      ThresholdRs. 20,000Rs. 20,000 (as per latest amendments; previously Rs. 15,000 or lower)
      Rate2%2% (as per latest amendment; previously 5%, 10%, etc.)
      TimingAt the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlierAt the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier
      PayerAny personAny person responsible for paying
      Deeming Provision (Suspense Account)Yes (by reference to general deeming provision under Clause 393(11))Yes (explicit Explanation)
      Certificate for Lower/Nil DeductionNot specified in the main clause; general provisions may applyEarlier provided under sub-sections (2) and (3), now omitted

      5.2. Key Similarities

      • Both provisions are triggered by commission, remuneration, or prize paid to persons involved in the lottery business.
      • The threshold and rate, as of the latest amendments, are harmonized at Rs. 20,000 and 2% respectively.
      • Both require deduction at the earlier of credit or payment, and both have anti-avoidance deeming provisions for suspense accounts.

      5.3. Key Differences and Evolution

      • Consolidation and Modernization: Clause 393(3) is part of a consolidated TDS framework, with uniform structure and language, and cross-references to general anti-avoidance and compliance provisions. Section 194G, being a stand-alone provision, had its own machinery clauses.
      • Certificates for Lower/Nil Deduction: Section 194G originally allowed for lower or nil deduction certificates from the Assessing Officer (sub-sections (2) and (3)), but these were omitted by Finance Act, 2003. The 2025 Bill does not specifically provide for such certificates in the lottery context, but general provisions for declarations or certificates under the new TDS regime may be applicable.
      • Legislative Clarity and Simplicity: The 2025 Bill adopts a clearer tabular format, making compliance easier for taxpayers and administrators. It also aligns the threshold and rate with current realities, reflecting a policy to reduce compliance burden on small agents.
      • Comprehensive Coverage: The new clause, by being part of a larger TDS scheme, ensures that general anti-avoidance, compliance, and procedural rules (such as credit to suspense account, time of deduction, reporting) apply uniformly across all TDS situations, reducing interpretative disputes.

      5.4. Policy Continuity and Change

      The essential policy-taxing the commission income of lottery intermediaries at source-remains unchanged. The changes are largely procedural and structural, aimed at harmonizing the TDS landscape, closing loopholes, and providing clarity.

      5.5. Potential Issues and Recommendations

      • Overlap with Winnings TDS: Care must be taken to distinguish between TDS on commission to agents and TDS on winnings to ticket holders, as both now appear in the same consolidated TDS provision but under different serial numbers.
      • Complex Commission Structures: As the lottery industry evolves, commission may be paid in non-monetary forms or as part of composite packages. The wide language ("by whatever name called") helps, but further clarification or guidance may be necessary to address new business models.
      • Threshold Application: The Bill could clarify aggregation rules for threshold computation, especially in cases where an agent receives commission from multiple payers.

      6. Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions

      While most countries tax lottery winnings and related commissions, the Indian scheme of TDS on commission is relatively unique in its detail and enforcement. Some jurisdictions tax only the winnings, not the commission paid to intermediaries. The Indian approach reflects the importance and scale of the lottery business in the country, and the need to ensure tax compliance at all levels of the distribution chain.

      7. Conclusion

      Clause 393(3)[Table: S.No. 4] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a logical evolution of Section 194G, preserving its essential features while embedding it in a modernized, consolidated TDS framework. The harmonization of threshold and rate, the broad definition of commission /  prize / remuneration, and the inclusion of anti-avoidance mechanisms ensure that the provision is robust and effective. The move towards a tabular, uniform TDS structure enhances clarity and compliance, while policy continuity ensures that the revenue objectives are met without imposing undue burden on small agents. Potential areas for further refinement include clarification of aggregation rules, explicit provision for lower/nil deduction certificates if required, and periodic review of thresholds and rates in line with inflation and industry practice. The provision, as drafted, is well-placed to address the challenges of tax collection from the lottery business in the contemporary Indian context.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax