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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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