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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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