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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Analysis of Tax Deduction at Source on Securities Income of FIIs and Specified Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 393(2)[Table: S.No. 15 & 16], Clause 393(4)[Table: S.No. 16 & 17] of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 196D of Income Tax Act, 1961

      27 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

      The taxation of income earned by Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and specified funds from securities has long been a significant aspect of Indian tax policy, balancing the twin objectives of attracting foreign capital and ensuring tax compliance. Section 196D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided a dedicated withholding tax regime for FIIs, and, following the emergence of new fund structures and investment vehicles, the law has evolved to address specified funds and related entities.

      With the introduction of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, Clause 393 proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the tax deduction at source (TDS) regime, including detailed tables for payments to both residents and non-residents. Of particular relevance are Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 15 & 16] and Clause 393(4) [Table: S.No. 16 & 17], which directly address TDS on income from securities payable to FIIs and specified funds, and the circumstances where such deduction is not required.

      This commentary undertakes a detailed analysis of these provisions, their legislative intent, operational mechanics, interpretative issues, and their comparative positioning vis-`a-vis the existing Section 196D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The discussion is structured to provide clarity on each relevant aspect, highlight practical implications, and identify areas for potential reform or judicial scrutiny.

      Objective and Purpose 

      The legislative intent behind the TDS regime for FIIs and specified funds is twofold: to ensure the collection of tax at the earliest possible point and to provide clarity and certainty to foreign investors regarding their tax obligations in India. Historically, ambiguities in the characterization of income, the applicable rates, and the interaction with double taxation avoidance agreements (DTAAs) have led to litigation and compliance challenges.

      The Income Tax Bill, 2025, through Clause 393 and its detailed tables, seeks to codify and streamline TDS provisions, making them more accessible and operationally efficient. The specific focus on FIIs and specified funds reflects the increasing complexity of cross-border investments and the need to align domestic law with international best practices, while safeguarding the revenue interests of the exchequer.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 15 & 16] and Clause 393(4) [Table: S.No. 16 & 17] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      I. Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 15 & 16] - TDS on Income from Securities Payable to FIIs and Specified Funds

      A. Clause 393(2) Table: S.No. 15

      • Nature of Income: Any income in respect of securities referred to in section 210(1) (Table: Sl. No. 1).
      • Payee: Any Foreign Institutional Investor.
      • Payer: Any person.
      • Rate: As per Note 2.

      This provision mandates that any person responsible for making payment of income in respect of specified securities to a Foreign Institutional Investor must deduct tax at source at the rate specified in Note 2. The reference to section 210(1) and Table: Sl. No. 1 is critical, as it defines the universe of "securities" for this purpose.

      Note 2 (not fully reproduced in the excerpt) typically clarifies the applicable rate, which may be the rate prescribed under the Act or the rate as per the relevant DTAA, whichever is lower, subject to the fulfillment of prescribed conditions (such as submission of a tax residency certificate, etc.).

      B. Clause 393(2) Table: S.No. 16

      • Nature of Income: Any income in respect of securities referred to in section 210(1) (Table: Sl. No. 1).
      • Payee: A specified fund, referred to in Schedule VI [Note 1(g)].
      • Payer: Any person.
      • Rate: 10%.

      This item extends the TDS regime to "specified funds," a term that generally refers to Category III Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) set up in International Financial Services Centres (IFSCs), as defined in the relevant Schedules and Notes. The prescribed TDS rate is 10%, aligning with the concessional regime introduced in recent years for such funds to promote the IFSC framework.

      II. Clause 393(4) [Table: S.No. 16 & 17] - Exemptions from TDS for FIIs and Specified Funds

      A. Clause 393(4) Table: S.No. 16

      • Provision for TDS: Income of Foreign Institutional Investors from securities referred to in section 393(2)(Table: Sl. No. 15).
      • Condition for No Deduction: Income, by way of capital gains arising from the transfer of securities referred to in section 210, if payable to a Foreign Institutional Investor.

      This clause provides that no TDS is required on capital gains arising to FIIs from the transfer of securities, reflecting the policy that while such capital gains are taxable in the hands of FIIs, the mechanism of TDS is not triggered. This is in line with the existing regime u/s 196D(2) of the 1961 Act.

      B. Clause 393(4) Table: S.No. 17

      • Provision for TDS: Income of Specified Fund from securities referred to in section 393(2)(Table: Sl. No. 16).
      • Condition for No Deduction: Income exempt at Schedule VI (Table: Sl. No. 1) to (Table: Sl. No. 4).

      This provision ensures that where the income of a specified fund is exempt under the relevant Schedules (typically corresponding to the exempt income u/s 10(4D) of the 1961 Act), no TDS is to be effected. This prevents unnecessary withholding and subsequent refund procedures where the underlying income is statutorily exempt.

      Practical Implications

      A. For Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs)

      The provisions ensure that FIIs are subject to TDS only on income from securities (such as dividends, interest, etc.), and not on capital gains. This distinction is crucial, as FIIs are often subject to different tax rates on capital gains (short-term and long-term) and other income under the Act and relevant DTAAs. The non-applicability of TDS on capital gains facilitates smoother repatriation of sale proceeds and reduces administrative burdens.

      The provision for applying the lower of the domestic rate or DTAA rate (subject to documentation) provides FIIs with the benefit of treaty protection, enhancing India's attractiveness as an investment destination.

      B. For Specified Funds

      Specified funds (typically Category III AIFs in IFSCs) are subject to a 10% TDS rate on income from securities, with an explicit carve-out for exempt income. This supports the policy objective of promoting IFSCs as competitive investment destinations and aligns with the concessional tax regime introduced in recent years.

      The exemption from TDS on exempt income prevents the cash flow and compliance issues that would arise if tax were withheld on income not subject to tax in the first place.

      C. For Payers and Intermediaries

      The clear tabulation of TDS rates and exemptions in the Bill aids compliance for Indian custodians, brokers, and other intermediaries responsible for making payments to FIIs and specified funds. The alignment with treaty provisions and explicit reference to documentation requirements reduces the risk of disputes and penal consequences.

      D. For the Revenue

      The provisions strike a balance between revenue protection (by ensuring TDS on taxable income) and administrative efficiency (by exempting TDS on capital gains and exempt income). The requirement for documentation to avail treaty rates helps prevent abuse and ensures that only eligible entities benefit from concessional rates.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 196D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      A. Scope and Structure

      Both Section 196D and Clause 393(2) of the new Bill address TDS on income from securities payable to FIIs and specified funds. However, the Bill adopts a tabular format, making the provisions more accessible and operationally clear. The structure allows for easy identification of the applicable rate, payee, payer, and nature of income.

      B. TDS Rates

      • FIIs: Section 196D(1) prescribes a 20% TDS rate (or DTAA rate, if lower). Clause 393(2) Table: S.No. 15 refers to the rate as per Note 2, which is expected to mirror this approach.
      • Specified Funds: Section 196D(1A) prescribes a 10% TDS rate, and Clause 393(2) Table: S.No. 16 does the same.

      C. Exemption for Capital Gains

      Section 196D(2) explicitly provides that no TDS is to be made on capital gains payable to FIIs. Clause 393(4) Table: S.No. 16 replicates this, ensuring continuity and clarity.

      D. Exemption for Exempt Income of Specified Funds

      Section 196D(1A) (proviso) and Clause 393(4) Table: S.No. 17 both provide that no TDS is required on income of specified funds that is exempt under the relevant provisions (Section 10(4D) in the 1961 Act; corresponding Schedule VI in the Bill). This harmonization prevents unnecessary withholding and aligns with the policy of promoting IFSCs.

      E. Operational Aspects

      Both regimes require TDS to be effected at the earlier of credit or payment, and both allow for the application of DTAA rates subject to prescribed documentation (tax residency certificate, etc.). The Bill's tabular format, however, may facilitate better compliance and reduce interpretational disputes.

      F. Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Definition of "Securities": Both provisions refer to securities as defined in the respective sections. Any ambiguity in the definition of securities (especially with the proliferation of new financial instruments) could lead to disputes.
      • Interaction with DTAAs: While both regimes provide for the application of lower treaty rates, practical issues may arise regarding documentation, timing, and the scope of "beneficial ownership."
      • Specified Funds: The definition and eligibility criteria for "specified funds" must be clear to prevent misuse or unintended exclusion.

      G. Unique Features of the Bill

      • The Bill's Clause 393(4) provides a consolidated table of exemptions from TDS, which is more user-friendly than the scattered provisos and explanations in the 1961 Act.
      • The Bill's approach allows for easier updates and amendments, as new categories of payees or types of income can be added to the tables without redrafting the entire section.

      H. International Comparison

      Many jurisdictions provide for a reduced or zero withholding tax rate for foreign portfolio investors on capital gains, in line with India's approach. The clarity regarding TDS on exempt income and capital gains in the Bill

      Practical Implications

      For Foreign Institutional Investors

      The continuation of the exemption from TDS on capital gains and the recognition of treaty rates for other income streams is a welcome development, as it reduces the risk of over-withholding and the need for refund claims. The tabular presentation in the Bill may facilitate easier compliance and reduce the risk of inadvertent non-compliance.

      For Specified Funds

      The explicit 10% TDS rate (subject to exemption for non-taxable income) provides certainty for specified funds, particularly those located in IFSCs. The exemption from TDS on exempt income aligns with the policy objective of promoting India as a global asset management hub.

      For Payers (Indian Companies, Asset Managers, Custodians)

      The clarity on timing, rate, and scope of TDS reduces the compliance burden and the risk of penal consequences for under- or over-withholding. The Bill's structure may also facilitate automation and system-based TDS compliance for large custodians and asset managers.

      For Tax Administration

      A streamlined and unambiguous TDS regime reduces administrative workload, minimizes disputes, and enhances the efficiency of tax collection. The new Bill's format may also improve data analytics and risk assessment by the tax authorities.

      Potential Issues and Areas for Clarification

      • Definition Alignment: The definitions of "securities", "specified fund", and "income" should be harmonized across the substantive and procedural provisions to avoid confusion or litigation.
      • Applicability of DTAA: While the general law provides for DTAA override, explicit mention in the TDS provisions (as in the 1961 Act) would enhance clarity for payers and recipients.
      • Procedural Compliance: The onus on payers to identify exempt income (especially for specified funds with mixed portfolios) may require robust documentation and, potentially, certification from the recipient fund.
      • Transition Issues: Implementation of the new Bill may require updated systems and processes for payers, especially for cross-referencing the correct tables and schedules.

      Conclusion

      Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 15 & 16] and Clause 393(4) [Table: S.No. 16 & 17] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represent a logical evolution of the existing Section 196D regime, retaining its core principles while enhancing clarity, operational efficiency, and alignment with policy objectives. The provisions ensure that FIIs and specified funds are subject to TDS only on income that is taxable, at rates that reflect both domestic law and treaty obligations, and that capital gains and exempt income are not subject to unnecessary withholding.

      The tabular format and consolidated exemption provisions in the Bill are significant improvements, likely to aid compliance and reduce litigation. However, careful attention must be paid to the definitions of securities and specified funds, the operationalization of DTAA benefits, and the prevention of abuse. As India's capital markets continue to evolve, ongoing legislative and judicial scrutiny will be essential to ensure that the TDS regime remains robust, fair, and conducive to investment.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax