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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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