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

      Comparative Legal Analysis of TDS on Commission and Brokerage : Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 1] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 194H of 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

      Legal Commentary on Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 1] of the  Income Tax Bill, 2025   Section 194H of Income-tax Act, 1961

      Introduction

      The taxation of commission and brokerage income through the mechanism of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) has long been a cornerstone of the Indian direct tax regime. Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961, established the framework for deduction of tax at source on commission or brokerage payments, aiming to plug revenue leakages and ensure tax compliance at the point of payment. With the introduction of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, a comprehensive overhaul of TDS provisions is proposed, encapsulated within Clause 393. Specifically, Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 1] address TDS on commission and brokerage, introducing nuanced changes in scope, coverage, and compliance requirements. This commentary undertakes a detailed legal analysis of these new provisions, compares them with the extant Section 194H, and evaluates their implications for stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind TDS provisions on commission and brokerage is to ensure early collection of tax, minimize tax evasion, and facilitate the tracking of financial transactions. The rationale is rooted in the recognition that commission and brokerage income, by its nature, is often susceptible to underreporting. By obligating the payer to deduct tax at the point of payment or credit, the law seeks to create an audit trail and bring such income within the tax net, thereby advancing the policy goal of tax base broadening. The Income Tax Bill, 2025, seeks to harmonize, rationalize, and modernize these provisions, aligning them with contemporary business practices and technological advancements, while also addressing practical challenges encountered under the current regime.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 1] of the  Income Tax Bill, 2025 

      1. Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] - TDS on Commission or Brokerage

      This clause is the direct successor to Section 194H. It mandates that a "specified person" deduct tax at source at the rate of 2% on payments to residents by way of commission or brokerage (excluding insurance commission, which is separately covered). The deduction obligation arises when the amount or aggregate of such payments exceeds Rs. 20,000 in a tax year. The deduction is to be made at the earlier of credit or payment.

      • Scope and Coverage: The provision targets commission or brokerage payments other than insurance commission. The term "specified person" is critical and, though not defined in the excerpt, generally refers to non-individuals or individuals/HUFs crossing specified turnover thresholds, in line with the existing Section 194H framework.
      • Threshold and Rate: The threshold of Rs. 20,000 mirrors the amended threshold u/s 194H (as per the Finance Act, 2025). The rate of 2% is identical to the current Section 194H rate.
      • Timing of Deduction: The obligation to deduct at the earlier of credit or payment ensures that TDS is not circumvented by deferring payment or using suspense accounts, reinforcing the anti-avoidance objective.
      • Exclusions: Insurance commission is carved out and separately addressed under S.No. 1(i), maintaining the distinction present under the 1961 Act (Section 194D for insurance commission).

      2. Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 1] - Exemption for Certain Commission or Brokerage Payments

      This clause, through its tabular listing, provides for cases where no TDS is required on commission or brokerage, specifically referencing payments by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) or Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) to their public call office (PCO) franchisees.

      • Targeted Exemption: This mirrors the specific exemption in the third proviso to Section 194H, recognizing the unique nature of PCO franchise arrangements and the administrative impracticality of TDS in such cases.
      • Legislative Continuity: By codifying this exemption in the new regime, the Bill ensures continuity and certainty for affected parties, avoiding disruption to existing business models.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 194H of Income-tax Act, 1961

      Scope and Definitions

      Both the new and old provisions focus on "commission or brokerage" but the definition in Section 194H is explicit and inclusive, covering various forms of agency and intermediary relationships except for professional services and securities. The Bill, while not reproducing the definition verbatim in the provided extract, is presumed to carry forward this broad approach, especially in the absence of a contrary indication.

      The exclusion of insurance commission continues, with such payments governed by separate, dedicated TDS provisions (Section 194D under the 1961 Act and S.No. 1(i) under the Bill).

      Person Responsible to Deduct

      Section 194H applies to all persons other than individuals/HUFs with turnover below the prescribed threshold. The Bill introduces the term "specified person," which, based on the context and legislative history, likely encompasses a similar class of payers. However, clarity on the precise definition of "specified person" in the Bill is essential for full alignment.

      The extension of TDS liability to certain individuals/HUFs with higher turnover is a progressive measure, ensuring that large business/professional entities cannot escape TDS obligations merely due to their organizational form.

      Thresholds and Rates

      Both regimes set a Rs. 20,000 threshold for TDS applicability and a deduction rate of 2%. This harmonization reflects legislative intent to maintain continuity and avoid unnecessary compliance burdens for small-value transactions.

      Timing of Deduction

      The requirement to deduct at the earlier of credit or payment is retained. This is crucial to prevent avoidance through accounting practices such as crediting to suspense accounts, as further reinforced by the deeming provision present in both the Bill and Section 194H.

      Exemptions

      The exemption for commission/brokerage paid by BSNL/MTNL to PCO franchisees is preserved in both legal frameworks. This targeted relief addresses sector-specific realities and administrative convenience.

      Practical Implications and Compliance

      • For Payers: The obligation to deduct TDS at the time of credit/payment necessitates robust accounting and payment systems. The continuity in threshold and rate eases the transition to the new law.
      • For Payees: Recipients of commission/brokerage must ensure proper documentation of TDS for credit in their tax returns. The Rs. 20,000 threshold provides relief for small agents/brokers.
      • For BSNL/MTNL and PCO Franchisees: The explicit exemption removes compliance burdens and cash flow issues for small franchisees, supporting financial inclusion and rural telephony objectives.

      Comparative Table 

      FeatureSection 194H of Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] of the  Income Tax Bill, 2025
      ApplicabilityAll persons except individuals/HUFs below turnover thresholdSpecified persons (definition to be clarified)
      ThresholdRs. 20,000 (post-2025)Rs. 20,000
      Rate2%2%
      Exclusion of Insurance CommissionYes (covered by section 194D)Yes (separately covered)
      Exemption for BSNL/MTNL PCO FranchiseesYesYes
      Time of DeductionEarlier of credit/paymentEarlier of credit/payment
      Deeming Provision for Suspense AccountYesPresumed Yes (not explicitly quoted)

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      While the Bill appears to carry forward the established framework, several interpretative and practical questions may arise:

      • Definition of "Specified Person": The lack of an explicit definition in the extract may lead to disputes regarding the scope of TDS liability, especially for individuals/HUFs near the turnover threshold.
      • Overlap with Other Provisions: As new business models emerge (e.g., e-commerce, gig economy), the distinction between commission, professional fees, and other payments may blur, leading to potential classification disputes.
      • Aggregation of Payments: The threshold applies to the aggregate of payments in a year, necessitating careful tracking and reconciliation by payers.
      • Suspense Account Treatment: The deeming provision for credits to suspense accounts is critical to prevent deferral of TDS but may require system changes for compliance.

      Practical Implications

      1. Businesses and Payers

      Businesses must ensure that their accounting systems are updated to track commission/brokerage payments, aggregate them for threshold purposes, and deduct TDS at the correct rate and time. The preservation of the Rs. 20,000 threshold and 2% rate means that existing systems and processes can largely continue, minimizing transition costs.

      2. Small Agents and Brokers

      For small agents and brokers whose income from commission/brokerage does not exceed Rs. 20,000 in a tax year, the non-deduction of TDS avoids cash flow issues and administrative burdens. However, those crossing the threshold must be vigilant in claiming TDS credit and maintaining documentation.

      3. Telecommunication Sector

      The specific exemption for BSNL/MTNL's PCO franchisees is a pragmatic measure, recognizing the low-margin, high-volume nature of such businesses and avoiding unnecessary compliance costs.

      4. Revenue Administration

      From the tax administration perspective, the continuity and clarity in TDS provisions facilitate monitoring and enforcement. The anti-avoidance provisions (e.g., suspense account deeming) close common loopholes.

      Conclusion

      Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 1(ii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 1] of the  Income Tax Bill, 2025, represent a largely faithful continuation of the TDS regime on commission and brokerage as established under Section 194H of Income-tax Act, 1961. The preservation of key parameters-applicability, threshold, rate, timing, and exemptions-reflects legislative intent to maintain stability and certainty for taxpayers while updating the statutory framework for a modern tax environment. The explicit retention of sector-specific exemptions underscores a pragmatic approach to compliance and administration.

      However, certain aspects, such as the precise definition of "specified person" and the handling of emerging business models, merit further clarification, either through subordinate legislation or administrative guidance. The overall structure supports the policy objectives of early tax collection, reduced evasion, and administrative efficiency, while balancing the compliance burden for small-value transactions. As the new law is operationalized, continued stakeholder engagement and responsive rule-making will be essential to address interpretative and practical challenges.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax