Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax