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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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