Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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