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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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