Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Grossing Up Mechanisms in Indian TDS Law : Clause 393(10) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 195A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      25 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 393(10) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a critical provision governing the mechanism for deduction of tax at source (TDS) where the payer agrees to bear the tax liability on behalf of the payee. This provision is a direct successor to the existing Section 195A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which similarly addresses the concept of "grossing up" income when payments are made on a net-of-tax basis. The principle underlying both provisions is that, for the purposes of TDS, the income on which tax is to be deducted must be increased to such a level that, after deducting the tax, the net amount matches the contractual obligation to the payee.

      This commentary provides a detailed examination of Clause 393(10), its objectives, interpretative nuances, practical implications, and a comparative analysis with Section 195A of the 1961 Act. The analysis also considers relevant legal principles, administrative practice, and the broader context of TDS compliance in India.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind Clause 393(10)-as with Section 195A-is to ensure that the tax base is not eroded in cases where the payer assumes the tax liability of the payee. The provision is rooted in the anti-avoidance principle: if a payer agrees to pay an amount "net of tax" to a payee, the actual income of the payee (for tax purposes) is not the net amount received, but the gross amount that would result in the net receipt after TDS. This prevents manipulation of the tax base and ensures that the correct amount of tax is deducted and remitted to the exchequer.

      Historically, the need for such a provision has arisen in cross-border transactions, contracts with non-residents, and certain high-value domestic arrangements, where payees demand a fixed net receipt and the payer undertakes the obligation to settle the tax. Without a grossing-up mechanism, the effective TDS would be on a lower base, leading to a shortfall in tax collection.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(10) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Text of Clause 393(10)

      "In a case other than that referred to in section 392(2)(a), where under an agreement or an arrangement, if the tax chargeable on any income of the recipient referred to in this Chapter is to be borne by the payer, then, for the purposes of deduction of tax, the income shall be increased to an amount which after deduction of tax as per provisions of this Chapter becomes equal to the net amount payable under such agreement or arrangement."

      Key Elements of Clause 393(10)

      1. Scope of Application: The clause applies broadly to any payment subject to TDS under Chapter 393, except for cases covered by section 392(2)(a) (which deals with specific salary-related scenarios).
      2. Agreement or Arrangement: The trigger is the existence of an agreement or arrangement where the payer undertakes to bear the tax liability of the recipient/payee.
      3. Grossing Up Mechanism: The income is to be "increased to an amount" such that, after TDS at the applicable rate, the net amount matches the contractual (net) payment to the payee.
      4. Purpose: The grossed-up amount is the base for TDS, ensuring the intended net payment is achieved after tax deduction.

      Interpretative Considerations

      • Wording Consistency: The language of Clause 393(10) closely mirrors Section 195A, with a minor refinement to refer to "income of the recipient referred to in this Chapter." This clarifies that the clause applies to all TDS-triggering payments under the new regime, not just those previously covered.
      • Exclusion of Salary Cases: By expressly carving out section 392(2)(a), the clause avoids overlap with the specialized TDS provisions for salary, which have their own grossing-up rules.
      • Computation Formula: The grossing-up calculation is implicit but well-established in administrative practice and jurisprudence. If Net Amount is payable and the TDS rate is r%, the grossed-up amount G is computed as:
        G = Net Amount / (1 - r%)
      • Applicability to Residents and Non-Residents: The clause, by reference to "income of the recipient referred to in this Chapter," applies to both residents and non-residents, covering all payments where TDS is applicable and the payer assumes the tax burden.
      • Interaction with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs): Where a DTAA prescribes a lower rate, the grossing-up is to be done at the DTAA rate, as the "rate in force" for TDS is determined by the Act or the applicable treaty, whichever is more beneficial to the taxpayer.

      Illustrative Example

      Suppose an Indian company agrees to pay a foreign consultant a net fee of Rs. 1,00,000, with the company bearing the tax liability. If the applicable TDS rate is 10%, the grossed-up amount would be:

      Gross amount = Rs. 1,00,000 / (1 - 0.10) = Rs. 1,11,111
      TDS = Rs. 11,111
      Net amount to payee = Rs. 1,00,000

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Multiple Rates and Surcharges: The presence of surcharge and cess can complicate the computation. The "rate as per provisions of this Chapter" must be interpreted to include all applicable add-ons.
      • Composite Payments: In cases where a single payment includes multiple components (some taxable, some not), the grossing-up should only apply to the taxable portion.
      • Foreign Exchange Fluctuations: In cross-border transactions, currency fluctuations between the date of agreement and payment can create discrepancies in net receipts.
      • Dispute on Net-of-Tax Clauses: The existence and enforceability of a net-of-tax clause can sometimes be disputed, especially if the contract is ambiguous or silent on tax treatment.

      Practical Implications

      For Payers

      • Increased Cost: Where the payer agrees to bear the tax, the effective cost of the transaction increases, as the gross payment (including tax) is higher than the contractual net amount.
      • Compliance Burden: Accurate computation, documentation, and disclosure of grossed-up amounts are essential. Errors can lead to short deduction, interest, and penalties.
      • Contract Drafting: Parties must clearly specify whether amounts are net or gross of tax and who bears the tax liability.

      For Payees

      • Tax Credit: The payee is deemed to have received the grossed-up amount and can claim TDS credit accordingly, even if the net cash received is lower.
      • Income Reporting: The grossed-up amount must be reported as income in the tax return, aligning with the TDS certificate (Form 16A or equivalent).

      For Tax Authorities

      • Revenue Protection: The clause safeguards the tax base, ensuring that the government receives tax on the full amount intended to accrue to the payee.
      • Audit and Enforcement: Authorities scrutinize contracts and payments to detect under-grossing or misapplication of rates, especially in cross-border or related-party transactions.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 195A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Text of Section 195A

      "In a case other than that referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, where under an agreement or other arrangement, the tax chargeable on any income referred to in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter is to be borne by the person by whom the income is payable, then, for the purposes of deduction of tax under those provisions such income shall be increased to such amount as would, after deduction of tax thereon at the rates in force for the financial year in which such income is payable, be equal to the net amount payable under such agreement or arrangement."

      Similarities

      • Substance: Both provisions impose the obligation to gross up the income where the payer assumes the tax liability.
      • Exclusion of Salary Cases: Both carve out salary TDS scenarios, which have separate grossing-up provisions.
      • Trigger: Both are triggered by an agreement or arrangement to pay net of tax.
      • Computation: Both require the income to be increased such that, after TDS, the net amount matches the contractual payment.

      Differences and Evolution

      • Wording and Scope: Clause 393(10) refers to "income of the recipient referred to in this Chapter," aligning with the broader and more structured TDS regime under the Bill. Section 195A refers to "income referred to in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter," which, while functionally similar, is less precise.
      • Reference to Salary Provisions: Clause 393(10) refers to section 392(2)(a), while Section 195A refers to section 192(1A). This is merely a renumbering and updating consistent with the new Bill's structure.
      • Integration with TDS Tables: Clause 393(10) is embedded within a comprehensive, tabular TDS framework, whereas Section 195A operates in a more fragmented legislative environment.
      • Clarity of Application: The new clause, by referencing the entire Chapter and its tables, clarifies that grossing-up applies across all TDS scenarios, not just those previously litigated or administratively recognized.

      Judicial and Administrative Interpretation

      • Case Law: Courts have consistently held that Section 195A is a mandatory provision; where the payer agrees to bear the tax, grossing-up is not optional. The same principle will apply under Clause 393(10).
      • CBDT Circulars: The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued clarifications on computation methodology, especially regarding inclusion of surcharge and cess in the grossing-up calculation.
      • Interaction with DTAAs: Courts have held that the grossing-up must be done at the beneficial DTAA rate, if applicable.

      Practical Examples under Both Regimes

      The computation process remains unchanged:

      • u/s 195A: If a net payment of Rs. 1,00,000 is to be made and the TDS rate is 10%, the grossed-up amount is Rs. 1,11,111.
      • Under Clause 393(10): The same computation applies, but the base for grossing-up is more clearly defined by the new tables and thresholds.

      Potential Issues and Ambiguities

      • Multiple TDS Provisions: The new Bill's tabular structure may lead to questions about which TDS entry applies, but once identified, Clause 393(10) applies uniformly.
      • Transition Issues: During the shift from the 1961 Act to the new Bill, contracts referencing the old law may require renegotiation or clarification.

      Comparative Table

      AspectSection 195A of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 393(10) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      TriggerAgreement/arrangement to pay net of taxSame
      ScopeAll TDS under Chapter XVII-B except salary (192(1A))All TDS under Chapter 393 except salary (392(2)(a))
      Grossing-up CalculationAt "rates in force" for the relevant FYAt "rates as per provisions of this Chapter" (including tables and notes)
      Inclusion of Surcharge/CessYes, as per administrative guidanceYes, by express reference to "rates as per provisions"
      Reference to DTAAsYes, if beneficialYes, as per "rates as per provisions"
      Clarity of ApplicationSome ambiguity due to scattered TDS provisionsHigher clarity due to integrated TDS tables

      Conclusion

      Clause 393(10) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, faithfully carries forward the legislative intent and operational mechanics of Section 195A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while providing greater clarity and integration with the new TDS framework. Its primary function is to ensure that the government's tax base is preserved whenever a payer agrees to make a net-of-tax payment, by mandating grossing-up of the income before TDS. The provision is crucial for both domestic and cross-border transactions, and its correct application is essential for compliance, revenue protection, and avoidance of disputes.

      While the substance remains unchanged, the new Bill's structure and language enhance clarity, reduce ambiguity, and align the TDS regime with contemporary legislative drafting standards. Stakeholders must continue to exercise diligence in contract drafting, computation, and documentation to ensure seamless compliance with the grossing-up requirement.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax