Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Tax Deduction at Source on Contractual and Professional Payments : Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)] of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 194M of the 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

      Legal Commentary on

      Introduction

      The mechanism of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) is a cornerstone of the Indian income tax regime, ensuring steady revenue inflow to the government and promoting tax compliance at the source of income generation. Over the years, the scope and application of TDS provisions have evolved, adapting to changing economic realities and policy objectives. Two such provisions - Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 194M of the Income-tax Act, 1961-are particularly significant for individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) making substantial payments for contractual work, professional services, or commissions/brokerages. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)], explores its legislative intent, practical implications, and potential ambiguities, and juxtaposes it with the existing Section 194M to elucidate continuities, changes, and implications for stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind introducing specific TDS provisions for individuals and HUFs not engaged in business or professional activities, or not otherwise liable to deduct TDS under the main business provisions (such as Sections 194C, 194H, or 194J), is to widen the tax base and plug potential revenue leakages. Historically, individuals and HUFs making high-value payments for personal or non-business purposes could escape the TDS net, creating a compliance gap and facilitating tax evasion or under-reporting by recipients. Section 194M, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, addressed this gap by mandating TDS on certain payments by individuals/HUFs exceeding a prescribed threshold. The Income Tax Bill, 2025, through Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)], seeks to continue and rationalize this regime, possibly with refinements in scope, definitions, and compliance requirements, as part of a broader overhaul of the TDS framework.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Structure and Scope of the Provision

      Clause 393(1) lays down the general rule for TDS, specifying that where any income or sum of the nature specified in the accompanying Table is credited or paid by the person specified, to a resident, the payer shall deduct income-tax at the specified rate, subject to threshold limits and timing rules. The Table is organized by serial numbers, each corresponding to a category of payment or income.

      Serial No. 6(ii) reads as follows:

      • Nature of Payment: Any sum-
        • (a) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract; or
        • (b) by way of fees for professional services; or
        • (c) by way of commission [not being insurance commission referred to in serial number 1(i)] or brokerage.
      • Payer: Any person, being an individual or Hindu undivided family [other than those required to deduct income-tax as per Sl. No. 6(i) and (iii) or Sl. No. 1(ii)].
      • Rate: 2%.
      • Threshold limit: Rs. 50,00,000.

      This provision essentially covers high-value payments by individuals or HUFs (not otherwise required to deduct tax under the main business/professional TDS provisions) for contractual work, professional services, commission, or brokerage, with a threshold of Rs. 50 lakh per financial year, and a TDS rate of 2%.

      2. Definitions and Exclusions

      • Payer: The provision applies to individuals or HUFs who are not required to deduct TDS under:
        • Sl. No. 6(i): Payments by a "designated person" (typically those in business/profession with turnover above a threshold, akin to the main TDS provisions under the 1961 Act such as 194C, 194H, or 194J).
        • Sl. No. 6(iii): Payments by a "specified person" (possibly companies, firms, etc. as defined elsewhere).
        • Sl. No. 1(ii): Commission or brokerage by a "specified person".
      • Nature of Payments: The terms "work", "professional services", "commission", and "brokerage" are not defined in the extract, but are likely to adopt definitions similar to those in the current 1961 Act:
        • "Work" (as per 194C Explanation): Includes advertising, broadcasting, carriage of goods/passengers, catering, manufacturing/supplying product as per customer specification, etc.
        • "Professional services" (as per 194J Explanation): Includes services rendered by legal, medical, engineering, architectural, accountancy, technical consultancy, interior decoration, etc.
        • "Commission or brokerage" (as per 194H Explanation): Any payment received/directly/indirectly for services rendered in the course of buying/selling goods, transactions relating to any asset, valuable article, or thing, excluding insurance commission.
      • Threshold Limit: No TDS is required if the sum, or aggregate of sums, paid to a resident during the financial year does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000. This is a significant threshold, ensuring that only high-value transactions are covered, thus balancing compliance burden with revenue interests.
      • Rate: The TDS rate is 2% of the sum paid or credited.
      • Timing: TDS is to be deducted at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier.

      3. Procedural Aspects and Compliance

      • Exemption from Main TDS Provisions: The provision applies only if the payer is not otherwise liable to deduct tax under the main TDS sections (i.e., not in business/profession above prescribed turnover, not a company/firm, etc.). This ensures that there is no overlap or double deduction.
      • Aggregation: The threshold applies on an aggregate basis for payments to each payee during the financial year, requiring payers to monitor cumulative payments for compliance.
      • Rate and Nature of Deduction: The flat 2% rate applies regardless of the nature of underlying service (work, professional, commission), simplifying compliance.
      • Documentation and Reporting: The provision does not specify PAN requirements, TDS certificate issuance, or return filing, but these may be detailed in rules or subsequent sections. Under the current Section 194M, there is no requirement to obtain a TAN (Tax Deduction Account Number), easing compliance for individuals/HUFs-whether this continues under the new provision would depend on subordinate legislation.
      • Exclusions: Payments for personal purposes are not explicitly excluded in the main text, but under the "No Deduction at Source" Table, payments by individuals/HUFs exclusively for personal purposes are exempt-this aligns with the policy of not burdening personal/non-commercial transactions with TDS compliance.

      4. Interplay with Other Provisions and Ambiguities

      • Overlap with Other TDS Provisions: The clause is carefully drafted to avoid overlap with Sl. No. 6(i) (business/profession payers) and 6(iii) (specified persons). However, practical issues may arise if the status of the payer changes during the year, or if there is ambiguity in classification.
      • Definition of Terms: The lack of explicit definitions in the Bill may create interpretative ambiguity, especially if the definitions in the 1961 Act are amended or repealed. Judicial guidance or clarificatory circulars may be required to resolve disputes.
      • Aggregation and Threshold Calculation: The provision requires aggregation of payments for threshold determination, but does not clarify whether this is on a contract-wise or payee-wise basis. The prevailing practice is payee-wise aggregation, but explicit clarification would aid compliance.
      • Nature of Payment: The inclusion of both "work" and "professional services" ensures wide coverage, but may also lead to interpretative disputes where the distinction is blurred (e.g., technical consultancy vs. contract work).
      • No Deduction at Source Table: As per Sl. No. 8(b) and Sl. No. 9, payments exclusively for personal purposes by individuals/HUFs are exempt from TDS, providing relief for non-commercial transactions and aligning with the legislative intent of targeting only large, non-personal payments.

      Practical Implications

      • For Individuals and HUFs: The provision brings high-value, non-business payments by individuals/HUFs within the TDS net, requiring them to monitor payments, deduct tax, deposit it with the government, and comply with reporting requirements. While the high threshold of Rs. 50 lakh limits the scope to significant transactions (such as construction contracts, large professional fees, property renovations, etc.), it does impose compliance on non-business taxpayers who may not be familiar with TDS processes.
      • For Recipients (Contractors, Professionals, Agents): The provision ensures greater reporting and traceability of high-value income, reducing the scope for tax evasion. However, it may also lead to cash flow issues if TDS is not appropriately credited, and require recipients to reconcile TDS credits in their tax returns.
      • For Tax Authorities: The provision enhances the ability to track high-value transactions and widen the tax base, but also necessitates clear administrative guidance to address ambiguities and ensure smooth compliance by non-business payers.
      • Compliance Requirements: While procedural relaxations (such as exemption from TAN in Section 194M) reduce compliance burden, the need to monitor cumulative payments, deduct and deposit TDS, and issue TDS certificates remains a challenge for individuals/HUFs not accustomed to tax withholding obligations.

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

      1. Text of Section 194M

      Section 194M, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 (effective from 1 September 2019), provides as follows:

      • Any individual or HUF (other than those required to deduct tax under 194C, 194H, or 194J) responsible for paying any sum to a resident for carrying out any work (including supply of labour), commission (not being insurance commission), brokerage, or fees for professional services, shall deduct TDS at 2% (w.e.f. 1 October 2024; earlier 5%) if the aggregate payments exceed Rs. 50,00,000 in a financial year.
      • No requirement to obtain TAN (Section 203A not applicable).
      • Definitions of "contract", "commission or brokerage", "professional services", and "work" are as per corresponding explanations in Sections 194C, 194H, and 194J.

      2. Key Similarities

      • Coverage: Both provisions apply to individuals/HUFs not otherwise liable to deduct TDS under the main business/professional TDS sections, and cover payments for contract work, professional services, and commission/brokerage.
      • Threshold: Both have a threshold of Rs. 50 lakh per financial year, ensuring only high-value payments are covered.
      • Rate: Both prescribe a TDS rate of 2% (Section 194M was amended from 5% to 2% effective 1 October 2024).
      • Timing: Both require deduction at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier.
      • Definitions: Both rely on definitions from the main TDS sections for key terms, ensuring consistency and clarity.
      • Aggregation: Both require aggregation of payments to each payee for threshold determination.
      • Exemption for Personal Purposes: Both exempt payments made exclusively for personal purposes by individuals/HUFs from TDS, aligning with the policy of targeting only non-personal, high-value transactions.

      3. Key Differences and Evolution

      • Structural Integration: Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)] is part of a comprehensive, tabular TDS regime in the 2025 Bill, integrating various TDS provisions into a single framework, whereas Section 194M is a standalone section in the 1961 Act.
      • Reference to Other Provisions: The new provision cross-references other serial numbers in the Table (e.g., excluding those liable under 6(i), 6(iii), 1(ii)), while Section 194M refers to 194C, 194H, and 194J. The underlying intent is similar, but the drafting is adapted to the new structure.
      • Definitions: Section 194M explicitly adopts definitions from other sections, while the Bill relies on cross-references and may require reading definitions from elsewhere in the Bill or subordinate legislation.
      • Procedural Relaxations: Section 194M explicitly exempts payers from obtaining a TAN, easing compliance. The Bill's provision does not specify this, leaving the matter to rules or administrative instructions. If the exemption continues, it would be a significant relief for non-business payers.
      • Wording and Clarity: The Bill's provision is more concise and tabular, which aids in quick reference but may create interpretative challenges for complex cases. Section 194M's narrative format is more detailed.
      • Potential for Expansion: The Bill's tabular structure allows for easier modification, addition, or rationalization of TDS categories in the future, potentially increasing flexibility for policymakers.

      4. Policy and Compliance Considerations

      • Compliance Burden: Both provisions impose new compliance requirements on individuals/HUFs making high-value payments, but the high threshold ensures that only significant transactions are covered. The exemption from TAN and simplified procedures u/s 194M should ideally be retained in the new regime to avoid discouraging compliance.
      • Revenue Impact: The provision is aimed at plugging revenue leakages from high-value, non-business transactions, and is likely to yield significant tax collections from sectors such as construction, consultancy, and agency services.
      • Risk of Litigation: Ambiguities in definitions, aggregation, and classification of payments may lead to disputes, particularly where the line between personal and non-personal payments is blurred, or where the payer's status changes during the year.
      • Administrative Guidance: Clear rules, FAQs, and circulars will be essential to ensure smooth transition and compliance, especially for non-business taxpayers unfamiliar with TDS processes.

      Comparative Table

       

      AspectClause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 194M of the Income-tax Act, 1961
      PayerIndividual or HUF (not required to deduct under S.No. 6(i), 6(iii), or 1(ii))Individual or HUF (not required to deduct under 194C, 194H, or 194J)
      PayeeResidentResident
      Nature of PaymentWork contracts, professional services, commission/brokerage (excluding insurance commission)Work contracts, professional services, commission/brokerage (excluding insurance commission)
      ThresholdRs. 50,00,000 (aggregate in tax year)Rs. 50,00,000 (aggregate in financial year)
      Rate2%2% (w.e.f. 1-10-2024; previously 5%)
      TimingCredit or payment, whichever is earlierCredit or payment, whichever is earlier
      DefinitionsNot expressly defined, but to be interpreted as per existing lawExplicitly references definitions in 194C, 194H, 194J
      ExemptionsDoes not apply where payer is otherwise required to deduct TDS under other provisionsDoes not apply where payer is otherwise required to deduct TDS under 194C, 194H, or 194J
      Procedural SimplicityImplied, but not specified; expected to follow existing simplified regimeNo TAN required; simplified compliance

      Conclusion

      Clause 393(1)[Table: S.No. 6(ii)] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a continuation and rationalization of the policy embodied in Section 194M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, targeting high-value payments by individuals and HUFs for contract work, professional services, and commissions/brokerages. The provision is carefully crafted to avoid overlap with the main TDS sections, applies a high threshold to minimize compliance burden, and adopts a flat 2% rate for simplicity. Its integration into a comprehensive, tabular TDS framework enhances clarity and flexibility, but also necessitates careful administrative guidance to address potential ambiguities and ensure smooth compliance. The comparative analysis reveals substantial continuity between the two regimes, with refinements in drafting and structure reflecting broader reforms in the TDS framework. Going forward, clarity on procedural requirements (such as TAN exemption), aggregation methodology, and definitions will be critical to achieving the policy objectives of widening the tax base and promoting compliance, while minimizing undue burden on non-business taxpayers.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax