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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    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