Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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