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 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