Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Tax Deduction at Source on 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