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 394 "Collection of tax at source." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      15 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 394 Collection of tax at source.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 394 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out a statutory regime for collection of tax at source (TCS) on specified receipts by specified persons at prescribed rates. It identifies nine categories of receipts (sale of specified goods, certain remittances, overseas tour packages, use of parking/toll/mines) and prescribes collection obligations, exemptions on presentation of declarations, and limited interplay with other tax deduction obligations. The provision affects sellers, authorised dealers, licensors/lessors and buyers; effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 394 (Deduction and collection at source) in the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The clause establishes a TCS framework: persons specified in column C of an accompanying Table are obligated to collect tax on receipts in column B at rates in column D and at the time specified in clause (1)(c). The Table enumerates nine receipt types, identifies the collector (seller, authorised dealer, licensor/lessor) and prescribes TCS rates. Definitions: "forest produce" is to have the same meaning as in any State Act for the time being in force or in the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The text includes procedural exemptions and limited interplays with other liabilities to deduct tax at source elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill version provides the operative words of the regime but omits certain implementation details and administrative timelines now present in the enacted text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 394(1) establishes three elements of the collection obligation: (a) the receipts on which TCS is to be collected (Table, column B); (b) the rate of collection (Table, column D); and (c) the timing - "at the time of debiting of the amount payable ... to the account of the buyer ... or at the time of receipt of such amount ... in cash or by way of a cheque of a draft or any other mode, whichever is earlier." The Table enumerates nine categories, including sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption (1%), tendu leaves (5%), timber and other forest produce (2%), scrap (1%), specified minerals (1%), sale consideration exceeding Rs.10,00,000 for motor vehicles or other notified goods (1%), LRS remittances exceeding Rs.10,00,000 (5% for education/medical; 20% for other), overseas tour packages (5% up to Rs.10,00,000; 20% above), and use of parking/toll/mines/quarry (2%). Clause 394(6) prescribes the statutory meaning of "forest produce" by reference to state law or the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

      Interpretation

      The Bill frames TCS as a duty of the person effecting the receipt (seller, authorised dealer, licensor/lessor), with timing tied to debiting to account or actual receipt - a cash/book nexus that aims to align collection with actual cashflow or accounting recognition. The specified rates signal policy choices: low rates (1-2%) on certain commodities, higher rates (5%/20%) on cross-border remittances and tourism packages to operate as deterrents or pre-emptive collection mechanisms for potential tax leakage. The cross-reference to state definitions for "forest produce" indicates legislative intent to harmonise with existing local regimes rather than introduce a uniform federal definition.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 394(2) exempts collection for buyers who are Indian residents when they furnish a written declaration in duplicate in a prescribed form and manner, stating that the goods are to be utilised for manufacturing/processing/generating power and not for trading purposes. Clause 394(3) requires the collector to deliver one copy of the declaration to the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner "on or before the seventh day of the month following the month of receipt of that declaration" in the enacted text; the Bill version simply requires delivery of one copy (the Bill does not state the exact timetable). Clause 394(4) (Bill) excludes collection by the authorised dealer on amounts for which tax has already been collected by the seller (serial 8). Clause 394(5) excludes collection in cases where the buyer is liable to deduct tax under other provisions and has done so. Clause 394(6) supplies the definition of "forest produce."

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A seller sells scrap to a resident buyer for Rs.200,000 and debits the buyer's ledger the same day. Under Clause 394(1), seller must collect 1% TCS at the time of debiting/receipt. If the buyer furnishes the prescribed declaration (utilisation for manufacturing and not trading), the collector need not collect TCS (Clause 394(2)).
      • Example 2: An individual remits Rs.1,500,000 under LRS for non-medical/non-educational purposes. The authorised dealer must collect 20% TCS on the remitted amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000 (Clause 394, serial 7(b)). If tax has already been collected by a seller under serial 8 on a related amount, appropriate non-duplication applies (Clause 394(4) in Bill limited to that interaction).
      • Example 3: A licensor receives Rs.500,000 for permitting use of a private parking lot. Clause 394 (serial 9) prescribes 2% TCS collected by the licensor/lessor at time of debiting/receipt.

      Interplay

      Clause 394 interacts with other TDS/TCS provisions of the Bill (not reproduced in the document). Clause 394(5) expressly disapplies collection where the buyer is already liable to deduct tax under other provisions and has done so - a non-cumulation rule. The Bill's reference to "any other provisions of this Act" implies coordination across the deduction-and-collection regime but does not list the specific provisions. The Bill leaves administrative details (forms, manner, prescribed formats and verification) to subordinate rulemaking ("as prescribed"), which will govern practical compliance.

      Differences between Section 394 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 394 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) 

      • Drafting corrections and wording: The Bill (old version) in sub-clause (1)(c) reads "by way of a cheque of a draft" (typographical error). The enacted Section 394 corrects this to "by way of a cheque or a draft or any other mode".
        • Practical impact: clarification removes ambiguity about acceptable modes of receipt; no substantive tax consequence but reduces litigation risk from drafting ambiguity.
      • Sub-section (2) - scope and framing: The enacted Section 394 introduces the prefatory phrase "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) (Table: Sl. Nos. 1 to 5)," before describing the exemption on presentation of a declaration; the Bill omits that prefatory phrase.
        • Practical impact: the enacted phrasing emphasizes that the exemption operates notwithstanding the collection obligation in sub-section (1), reinforcing that the declaration displaces the collection duty for the specified buyers; the Bill's omission leaves the relationship implicit and could have been relied upon for a narrower reading.
      • Declaration procedure and delivery obligation (sub-section (3)): The Bill requires the person responsible to "deliver, one copy of the declaration" to the tax commissioner. The enacted Section 394 requires the person to "deliver or cause to be delivered, one copy of the declaration ... on or before the seventh day of the month following the month of receipt of that declaration."
        • Practical impact: enacted language adds a compliance timeline (7th day) and a causation clause ("or cause to be delivered") broadening responsibility where a third party may effect delivery; increased procedural clarity and a strict timeline for administrative receipt by the tax authority.
      • Exception for remittances under LRS and loans for education (sub-section (4)): The Bill's sub-section (4) is limited to excluding collection "on such amount on which tax has been collected by the seller referred to in serial number 8." The enacted provision expands sub-section (4) to add a second clause: (b) exclusion where the remitted amount is a loan obtained from any financial institution as defined in section 129(3)(b) for the purpose of pursuing any education.
        • Practical impact: enactment introduces an additional exemption for LRS remittances funded by education loans from defined financial institutions, reducing tax collection at source burden for such remittances and creating an additional compliance and verification requirement for authorised dealers.
      • Sub-section numbering/footnote and cross-reference language: The Bill's sub-section (6) references "For the purposes of this sub-section, 'forest produce'..." The enacted statute references "For the purposes of this section, 'forest produce'..." and includes a corrigendum note.
        • Practical impact: enacted change clarifies intended scope of the definition provision to the whole section rather than a single sub-section; corrigendum indicates a correction post enactment, reducing interpretive uncertainty regarding where the defined term applies.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Collectors (sellers, authorised dealers, licensors/lessors) must identify when receipts fall within the Table, determine the correct rate, and collect at the time of debiting or receipt. Risk areas include misclassification of receipts (e.g., whether a receipt is for "sale of minerals" versus other services), failure to obtain or preserve prescribed declarations, and duplicate collection where overlapping entries (serial 7 and 8) may apply.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Collectors should maintain copies of declarations (one copy to be delivered to tax authorities per Bill), evidence of debiting/receipt dates, and documentation to show exemption conditions (e.g., buyer's declaration of end-use). Payment records and ledger entries will be critical to demonstrate correct timing and rate application. Where cross-collection rules apply (serial 7 vs 8), proof of prior collection by the seller will be material to avoid collection by the authorised dealer.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 394 prescribes TCS on nine specified receipts, allocating collection obligations to sellers, authorised dealers or licensors/lessors at fixed rates.
      • Timing of collection is anchored to debiting the buyer's account or actual receipt - creating a clear cash/book nexus for collection events.
      • Buyers who are Indian residents can avoid collection on certain goods by furnishing a prescribed declaration of end-use (manufacturing/processing/generating power and not trading).
      • Clause 394 attempts to prevent double collection by excluding authorised dealer collection where the seller has collected on related receipts; it also disapplies collection where the buyer has deducted tax under other provisions.
      • The Bill provides limited definitional guidance (forest produce) and leaves procedural prescriptions (forms, manner) to rules/regulations ("as prescribed").
      • Practical compliance will require robust documentation of debits/receipts, declarations, and coordination where multiple collection/deduction provisions could apply.
      • Specific administrative timelines and an additional exemption (education loan LRS remittances) appear in the enacted text but are absent or less developed in the Bill-version, underscoring the importance of reading the enacted section and corrigenda.

      Full Text:

      Section 394 Collection of tax at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax