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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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