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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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