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
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
❯❯
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
    Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
    Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
    Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
    Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
    Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
    Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
    Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
    A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
    Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
    Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
    Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
    Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
    Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
    Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
    Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
    Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
    Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
    Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
    Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
    Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

    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