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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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