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

      Tax Deduction at Source on Land Acquisition Compensation : Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3] of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 194LA of Income Tax Act, 1961

      24 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The deduction of tax at source (TDS) is a foundational mechanism in Indian taxation, ensuring advance collection of tax and broadening the tax base. The Income Tax Bill, 2025, proposes to consolidate and rationalize TDS provisions, including those relating to compensation on compulsory acquisition of immovable property. This commentary focuses on Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, analyzing their operation, objectives, and implications, and compares them with the existing Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The analysis covers legislative intent, detailed breakdown of the provisions, practical implications, and a comparative study, highlighting continuities and changes, as well as potential issues for stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind TDS on compensation for compulsory acquisition of immovable property is to ensure that such receipts, which may be substantial and sporadic, do not escape the tax net. Section 194LA was introduced to capture tax at the point of payment of compensation, recognizing that recipients may otherwise have no regular tax liability or may not report such income. The Income Tax Bill, 2025, continues this policy, aiming for greater clarity, consolidation, and alignment with contemporary land acquisition laws, especially post the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("RFCTLARR Act").

      Detailed Analysis

      I. Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025,

      Textual Provision:
      This clause mandates TDS on:

      • Any sum, being in the nature of:
        • (a) compensation or the enhanced compensation; or
        • (b) consideration or the enhanced consideration,
        on account of compulsory acquisition, under any law for the time being in force, of any immovable property (other than agricultural land).
      • Payer: Any person.
      • Rate: 10%.
      • Threshold limit: Rs. 5,00,000.

      The deduction is triggered when the amount paid or credited to a resident exceeds Rs. 5,00,000 in a financial year. The provision applies to both compensation and any subsequent enhancement thereof, ensuring coverage of all forms of consideration received due to compulsory acquisition.

      II. Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025,

      Textual Provision:
      Clause 393(4) provides for exceptions to TDS. Table S.No. 3 specifically exempts:

      • Income by way of any award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income-tax u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

      This means, where the compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition is exempt u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, no TDS is to be made, even if the amount exceeds the threshold.

      III. Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      Textual Provision:
      Section 194LA requires:

      • Any person responsible for paying to a resident any sum, being in the nature of compensation or enhanced compensation or consideration or enhanced consideration on account of compulsory acquisition, under any law for the time being in force, of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), to deduct an amount equal to 10% of such sum as income-tax at the time of payment (in cash, cheque, draft, or any other mode), whichever is earlier.
      • No deduction if the amount or aggregate amount paid during the financial year does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000 (as per Finance Act, 2025; earlier, it was lower).
      • No deduction if the payment is in respect of any award or agreement exempt u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act.
      • Definitions of "agricultural land" and "immovable property" are provided.

      Interpretation and Key Features of Each Provision

      A. Scope of TDS Obligation

      Both Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] and Section 194LA impose TDS on compensation (including enhanced compensation or consideration) paid to residents for compulsory acquisition of immovable property, excluding agricultural land. The scope covers all forms of payment, whether initial or subsequent, arising from the acquisition process.

      B. Rate and Threshold

      • Rate: Both the Bill and Section 194LA prescribe a 10% TDS rate.
      • Threshold: The threshold for TDS is Rs. 5,00,000 in both the Bill (as per Table D) and Section 194LA (post Finance Act, 2025 amendment).

      This parity ensures continuity and avoids confusion or abrupt changes for taxpayers and deductors.

      C. Timing and Mode of Deduction

      Both provisions require deduction at the time of payment or credit, whichever is earlier, regardless of the mode (cash, cheque, draft, or other modes). This is in line with standard TDS practice, ensuring tax is collected at the earliest opportunity.

      D. Exclusion of Agricultural Land

      Both provisions exclude agricultural land from the definition of "immovable property" for TDS purposes. Section 194LA provides a detailed definition, referencing section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes land in rural areas as well as certain notified areas. The Bill, while not repeating the definition verbatim, is presumed to adopt a similar approach, given the legislative continuity and the intent to avoid taxing agricultural income, which is constitutionally exempt.

      E. Exemption for Awards u/s 96, RFCTLARR Act

      A significant feature of both the Bill and existing law is the exemption for compensation paid under awards or agreements exempted from income-tax u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Section 96 states that no income-tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any compensation awarded under the Act, reflecting legislative intent to protect landowners from tax on such compensation. Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3] of the Bill and the second proviso to Section 194LA both operationalize this exemption by prohibiting TDS in such cases.

      F. Definitions and Ambit

      Section 194LA provides explicit definitions for "agricultural land" and "immovable property," ensuring clarity in application. The Bill, while not repeating these definitions in Clause 393, is likely to rely on the general definitions provided elsewhere in the Bill or by reference to existing law. This approach is consistent with legislative drafting practices, especially in a consolidating statute.

      Practical Implications

      1. For Deductors (Acquiring Authorities)

      • Obligation to deduct TDS at 10% if the compensation paid to a resident (other than for agricultural land) exceeds Rs. 5,00,000 in a financial year.
      • Need to correctly identify whether the land is agricultural as per statutory definitions. Misclassification can lead to non-compliance or wrongful deduction.
      • Responsibility to check whether the award or agreement is exempt u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. If so, no TDS is required, even if the amount is substantial.
      • Procedural compliance: Timely deposit of TDS, issuance of TDS certificates, and reporting obligations continue to apply.

      2. For Recipients (Landowners)

      • Receipts are subject to TDS unless the land is agricultural or the acquisition is exempt u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act.
      • Where TDS is deducted, the recipient can claim credit while filing the return and, if eligible, seek refund if the actual tax liability is lower.
      • Potential for cash flow impact if TDS is deducted but the compensation is ultimately exempt (e.g., due to subsequent clarification about the nature of the land or the exemption u/s 96).

      3. For Tax Administration

      • Continued need for clear communication and guidance to acquiring authorities, especially regarding the scope of section 96 exemptions.
      • Potential for litigation or disputes where classification of land or the applicability of section 96 is unclear.
      • Ensuring that the consolidation and rationalization of TDS provisions in the Bill does not create interpretive confusion or compliance gaps.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      A. Structural and Drafting Differences

      The Income Tax Bill, 2025, seeks to consolidate TDS provisions in a tabular and modular format, grouping similar payments and their respective TDS requirements for ease of reference. Section 194LA, in contrast, is a stand-alone provision. The Bill's approach enhances clarity and accessibility, especially for non-experts and institutional deductors.

      B. Threshold and Rate Alignment

      The Bill maintains the threshold and rate as per the latest amendment to Section 194LA, ensuring a seamless transition and minimizing disruptive impact. This signals legislative intent to maintain status quo on substantive taxation, focusing instead on procedural modernization.

      C. Exemption for Awards u/s 96, RFCTLARR Act

      Both the Bill and Section 194LA provide for exemption from TDS where the compensation is exempt u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. The Bill, by specifically cross-referencing the relevant clause, ensures that the exemption is clear and operationally effective.

      D. Definitions and Potential Ambiguities

      Section 194LA expressly defines "agricultural land" and "immovable property," reducing interpretive uncertainty. The Bill, while not repeating these definitions in the TDS clause, likely relies on centralized definitions, which could, in practice, lead to disputes if not carefully harmonized. For instance, if the definition of "agricultural land" is narrower or broader in the Bill than in Section 2(14)(iii) of the 1961 Act, it could alter the scope of TDS, impacting both revenue and taxpayer rights.

      E. Procedural Provisions

      The Bill, by grouping TDS provisions, also clarifies procedural aspects such as timing (credit or payment, whichever is earlier), and incorporates general exceptions and declarations for non-deduction (e.g., where the recipient's total income is below the taxable limit). These procedural clarifications are in line with modern drafting and administrative convenience.

      F. Policy Continuity and Legislative Intent

      The Bill's provisions reflect a clear intent to continue the established policy of taxing compensation for compulsory acquisition, except where agricultural land or section 96 exemption applies. The modernization of language and structure does not alter the substantive tax burden or relief available to taxpayers.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      1. Definition of Agricultural Land

      The absence of an explicit definition in Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] could create interpretive challenges, especially if the Bill's general definitions differ from those in the 1961 Act. Judicial precedents under the 1961 Act (e.g., regarding the proximity to municipal limits, use of land, etc.) may need to be considered, and administrative guidance may be necessary.

      2. Determination of Section 96 Exemption

      While the Bill and Section 194LA both exempt awards covered by section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, determining whether a particular award or agreement qualifies can be complex, especially in cases of partial acquisition, negotiated settlements, or acquisitions under other statutes. The risk of wrongful deduction or non-deduction remains unless acquiring authorities are well-trained or provided with clear instructions.

      3. Enhanced Compensation and Subsequent Payments

      Both the Bill and Section 194LA cover enhanced compensation, but practical issues may arise regarding TDS on interest awarded by courts, or on delayed payments. Judicial decisions under the 1961 Act have clarified that TDS applies to the principal amount, but not always to interest, depending on the characterization of the payment. The Bill does not explicitly address this, so reliance on case law may continue.

      4. Multiple Deductors and Aggregation

      Where compensation is paid by multiple authorities or in installments, aggregation for threshold purposes can be complex. The Bill provides that the threshold applies to the aggregate of amounts paid or payable, but operationalizing this may be challenging, especially where payments are staggered or made by different agencies.

      Stakeholder Impact

      1. Government and Acquiring Bodies

      The Bill aligns with existing practice, so compliance systems already in place u/s 194LA will largely continue. However, the need for training on the new format and possible changes in definitions may require transitional support.

      2. Landowners and Recipients

      Landowners, especially small and marginal farmers, continue to benefit from the exemption for agricultural land and for awards covered by section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. The increase in threshold to Rs. 5,00,000 (as per the latest amendment) provides additional relief to those receiving smaller amounts of compensation.

      3. Tax Professionals and Administrators

      The consolidation and tabular presentation in the Bill may simplify advisory and compliance work, but only if definitions and cross-references are clearly harmonized. There may be an initial period of adjustment as practitioners and administrators familiarize themselves with the new structure.

      Comparative Table 

      AspectSection 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025,Analysis
      Nature of PaymentCompensation/enhanced compensation or consideration/enhanced consideration on compulsory acquisition of immovable property (other than agricultural land)Same (explicitly uses same language)Substantially identical in scope and terminology
      Property CoveredImmovable property (other than agricultural land)SameNo change; continues to exclude agricultural land
      PayerAny person responsible for payingAny personWording harmonized; no substantive change
      RecipientResidentResidentScope remains limited to payments to residents
      Rate of TDS10%10%No change
      Threshold LimitRs. 5,00,000 (as per Finance Act, 2025)Rs. 5,00,000Threshold harmonized; earlier amendments raised limit from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 and now Rs. 5,00,000
      Time of DeductionAt time of payment (cash/cheque/draft/other mode), whichever is earlierAt time of credit or payment, whichever is earlierConsistent in effect
      Exemption for RFCTLARR AwardsNo deduction if payment is exempt u/s 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013Same (Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3])Provision retained verbatim; ensures continuity
      Definition of "agricultural land"Explicitly refers to section 2(14)(iii) of Income-tax ActNot specified in extract; likely to be defined in the Bill or by referencePotential area for clarification in final text
      Procedural ProvisionsGuided by general TDS procedures (PAN, TDS certificate, returns)Covered under general provisions of Clause 393No major change anticipated

      Conclusion

      Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 3(iii)] and Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 3] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025,, represent a modernized, consolidated framework for TDS on compensation for compulsory acquisition of immovable property, closely mirroring the substantive law under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bill preserves key policy features: a 10% TDS rate, a Rs. 5,00,000 threshold, exclusion of agricultural land, and exemption for awards covered by section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. The main changes are structural and procedural, aiming for clarity and ease of compliance. Stakeholders must, however, be alert to the need for clear definitions and guidance, especially regarding agricultural land and the scope of section 96 exemptions. The transition to the new regime should be smooth, provided adequate administrative support and communication are ensured.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax