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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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