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

      Comparison of section 392 "Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      13 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 392 Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The texts compared are Clause 392 dealing with deduction of income-tax at source on salaries and accumulated balances payable to employees. They affect employers/payers, trustees of provident/superannuation funds, eligible start-ups and employees. The documents are the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025 (Section 392) as reproduced; differences between the two are identified below. Effective date or commencement is: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: provisions are located in the chapter dealing with deduction and collection at source (TDS/TCS) and interact with section 17 (taxability of perquisites), section 140 (definition/eligibility of start-ups as referenced), section 289(3) (time for payment by payee), Schedule XI (paragraphs referenced) and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. The provision governs-(a) employer obligations to deduct tax on salaries at average rates; (b) optional payment of tax by employers on non-monetary perquisites; (c) special rules for eligible start-ups and allotment/transfer of specified securities or sweat equity; (d) particulars to be furnished by the assessee for estimating tax to be deducted; and (e) obligation of trustees/authorised persons to deduct tax on accumulated balances under provident/superannuation funds.

      Definitions or explanatory provisions: Not stated in the document beyond cross-references to section 17, section 140, section 289(3) and Schedule XI. The precise meaning of "average rate" is not defined in these texts; Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Section/Clause 392 imposes obligations on any person responsible for paying income chargeable under the head "Salaries" to deduct income-tax at the time of payment at the average rate computed on the estimated income of the assessee for that year. It addresses non-monetary perquisites (optional employer payment), special rules for eligible start-ups relating to specified securities/sweat equity, particulars to be furnished by the assessee for deduction computation, duties of trustees of recognised provident funds and superannuation funds, and a specific procedure and rate (10%) for deduction by EPF trustees where aggregated payments are Rs. 50,000 or more and the amount is includible in total income. Ingredients/elements: payer responsibility, timing of deduction (at payment), rate basis (average rate), prescribed forms and verification for employee particulars, trustees' deduction obligations where Schedule XI paragraphs apply, and the specific 10% deduction rule for EPF accumulated balances.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: Not stated in the document. The text indicates a scheme to place primary responsibility on payers/trustees to withhold tax at source at average rates and to provide procedural avenues (prescribed forms/verification) for employees to influence withholding amounts. No explicit statement of intent beyond operative obligations is provided in the documents.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly present in the text include:

      • Reduction of tax deductible from salary is permitted only on account of (i) loss under "Income from house property"; and (ii) tax already deducted/collected under other provisions of the Chapter.
      • Trustees of recognised provident funds/superannuation funds must apply deductions where specified paragraphs of Schedule XI apply; EPF trustees must deduct 10% where aggregate payment is Rs. 50,000 or more and the balance is includible in total income owing to paragraph 8 of Part A of Schedule XI not being applicable.
      • Employers may elect to pay tax on non-monetary perquisites at their option; in such cases tax is treated as if deductible at source from salary and subject to Chapter provisions.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer must deduct TDS at average rate on monthly salary payable to an employee by estimating annual salary income and applying the rates in force for that tax year. (Details of computation method are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A trustee of a recognised provident fund pays an accumulated balance of Rs. 75,000 to a former employee where the amount is includible in total income; the trustee is required to deduct tax at 10% at payment. (Exact calculation and remittance timelines are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 3: An eligible start-up issues sweat equity to an employee; the start-up shall either deduct tax or pay tax on the amount as per rates in force for the tax year in which the security is allotted/ transferred and within the time specified for the payee in section 289(3).

      Interplay

      The provision cross-references section 17 (perquisites), section 140 (eligible start-up reference), section 289(3) (timing for payment by payee), and Schedule XI (conditions for provident/superannuation fund taxability and deductions). Specific rules or notifications prescribing forms, verification methods, the rate of exchange for foreign currency salary conversion, and prescribed forms/manner are referenced but not reproduced here. The texts do not reproduce the content of Schedule XI or section 17; interpretation will require reference to those provisions. Any further interaction with rules or circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Identified Differences Between the Section 392 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 392 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025

      • Reference to section 17 sub-clause for perquisites: Enacted Section 392(2)(a) references taxability "u/s 17(1)" for non-monetary perquisites; the Bill (Old Version) text references section 17(2).
        • Practical impact: The numerical cross-reference determines which clause of section 17 the optional employer payment applies to. The documents differ; the operative effect depends on which provision in section 17 actually concerns the specified non-monetary perquisites. The enacted text may broaden or narrow the set of perquisites covered relative to the Bill depending on the content of section 17(1) vs 17(2). The exact policy effect cannot be determined from these documents alone.
      • Clause 3 wording - "as the case may be": Enacted text (Document 1) in sub-section (3) reads that an eligible start-up "shall deduct or pay, as the case may be," whereas the Bill (Document 2) omits "as the case may be."
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of "as the case may be" clarifies that an eligible start-up may either deduct tax or pay tax itself (i.e., two alternative obligations). Omission could create ambiguity whether the obligation is exclusively to deduct. The enacted text clarifies options for compliance by start-ups.
      • Specification of verification and timeframe language in sub-section (4): Enacted section 392(4)(a) requires particulars "in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed" and explicitly adds "for the same tax year" to sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) in certain places; the Bill uses shorter phrasing ("in such form and manner as prescribed") and omits some temporal qualifiers.
        • Practical impact: The enacted text tightens/formalises the evidentiary and verification requirement for particulars provided by the assessee and expressly ties several particulars to the same tax year, potentially reducing ambiguity in year-to-year adjustments. Employers/payers may be required to follow prescribed verification formalities when accepting employee declarations.
      • Sub-section (4)(b) minor drafting difference: Both versions preserve that tax deductible from salaries shall not be reduced except for house property loss and tax deducted/collected under other provisions. The enacted text explicitly states "the tax deductible from income under the head 'Salaries' shall not be reduced in any case, except on account of-- (i) loss under the head 'Income from house property'; and (ii) the tax deducted and collected as per other provisions of this Chapter." The Bill's wording is substantially the same.
        • Practical impact: No substantive change evident from the texts provided.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Employers/payers must estimate annual salary income to compute average rate TDS at time of payment and must obtain/verify prescribed particulars from employees if they are to affect the TDS. Failure to deduct (or incorrectly deduct) may expose payers to liability under the Chapter; trustees have direct obligations to deduct at specified rates where applicable.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: Employers should maintain prescribed forms and the verification records for employee-furnished particulars; trustees should retain documents supporting calculation of accumulated balances and that payments meet the Schedule XI conditions for deduction. Exact record retention periods and form identifiers are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 392 places primary TDS obligation on payers for salary payments at an average rate computed on estimated annual income.
      • Employers may opt to pay tax on non-monetary perquisites; enacted text cross-references a different sub-clause of section 17 than the Bill, creating a substantive difference in coverage depending on section 17's content.
      • Eligible start-ups have clarified flexibility ("deduct or pay, as the case may be") in the enacted text for tax on specified securities/sweat equity allotted/transferred.
      • Enacted text strengthens/formalises verification requirements for employee particulars used to compute TDS and ties certain particulars to the same tax year.
      • Trustees of provident and superannuation funds must deduct tax under Schedule XI rules; EPF trustees must deduct at 10% where aggregated payment is Rs. 50,000 or more and certain Schedule XI conditions make the amount taxable.
      • Several differences between Bill and enacted text are drafting/formulation fixes; some differences (notably the cross-reference to section 17 and inclusion of "as the case may be") may have substantive application effects.
      • Details on rates, prescribed forms, verification manner, timing for remittance, and administrative procedure are referenced but not contained in these texts; such procedural content is Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 392 Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax