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 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

Acts Income Tax