Yes, it could. Section 192(1) requires deduction on the estimated salary income for the year out of the amount payable, so a non-cash perquisite raises the estimate and the tax comes out of the cash salary; there is no declaration an employee can make that reduces it. The employer may instead pay the tax on a non-monetary perquisite itself under s.192(1A). If it does, the tax is exempt in the employee's hands under s.10(10CC), is treated as tax deducted at source so the credit comes through in the ordinary way, and is disallowed to the employer under s.40(a)(v).
Section 192(1) is the whole of the employer's problem. It requires that "Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall, at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income-tax computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year in which the payment is made, on the estimated income of the assessee under this head for that financial year." The base is the estimated income under the head for the year; the fund is the amount payable. A perquisite that is never paid in money still enters the base, and the tax on it has to come out of whatever cash salary there is. Nothing in the section keys the obligation to receipt of cash, and nothing in it lets the employee opt out.
The employee's declaration route does not help either. Section 192(2B) lets an employee send in particulars of other income and of a house property loss, but its proviso stops the mechanism being used to reduce the salary deduction: it provides that "this sub-section shall not in any case have the effect of reducing the tax deductible except where the loss under the head "Income from house property" has been taken into account, from income under the head "Salaries" below the amount that would be so deductible if the other income and the tax deducted thereon had not been taken into account." A statement that the employee has no money to pay the tax is not a particular the payroll may act on at all.
The one piece of in-year flexibility is the employer's. Section 192(3) provides that "The person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) or sub-section (2B) may, at the time of making any deduction, increase or reduce the amount to be deducted under this section for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency arising out of any previous deduction or failure to deduct during the financial year." That is the provision under which a large one-off perquisite arising in, say, February can be spread across the remaining months rather than taken in one bite - within the financial year, and no further. It is a power the employer exercises, not a right the employee has, and the ask should go to payroll early in the year rather than after the deduction.
The employer's alternative is to bear the tax. Section 192(1A) provides that "Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the person responsible for paying any income in the nature of a perquisite which is not provided for by way of monetary payment, referred to in clause (2) of section 17, may pay, at his option, tax on the whole or part of such income without making any deduction therefrom at the time when such tax was otherwise deductible under the provisions of sub-section (1)." A stock option perquisite falls in clause (2) of s.17 and is not provided by way of monetary payment, so on the language it is within the option; no decision on that specific application was traced.
What the employer then pays is computed under s.192(1B): "For the purpose of paying tax under sub-section (1A), tax shall be determined at the average of income-tax computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year, on the income chargeable under the head "Salaries" including the income referred to in sub-section (1A), and the tax so payable shall be construed as if it were, a tax deductible at source, from the income under the head "Salaries" as per the provisions of sub-section (1), and shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter." Two consequences follow from the closing words. The amount is treated as tax deducted at source, so it is reported, deposited and credited in the ordinary way and appears against the employee's own permanent account number - the credit question in the gap has a mechanical answer, and it is s.199 and the credit rule, not anything special. And because it is subject to the Chapter, the ordinary consequences of short deduction and late deposit attach to it.
The employee is not taxed on the benefit of having his tax paid. Section 10(10CC) exempts, "in the case of an employee, being an individual deriving income in the nature of a perquisite, not provided for by way of monetary payment, within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17, the tax on such income actually paid by his employer, at the option of the employer, on behalf of such employee, notwithstanding anything contained in section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);". So there is no grossing up of the tax borne into salary, and no second round of it. The cost falls on the employer, which cannot deduct it: s.40(a)(v) disallows "any tax actually paid by an employer referred to in clause (10CC) of section 10".
So the three answers. The tax can be taken out of other salary, and lawfully so. If the employee cannot fund it, the statute offers him nothing after the event - the routes are the employer's spreading power under s.192(3), the employer's option to bear the tax under s.192(1A), a lower or nil deduction certificate applied for before the event, and, for an eligible start-up alone, the deferral in s.192(1C). And if the employer bears it, the credit is given because the payment is deemed to be tax deducted at source.
One related protection is worth knowing. Where tax has been deducted from an employee's salary and the employer has not paid it over, s.205 bars a direct demand on the employee for that amount, and the courts have enforced that against refund adjustments as well as against recovery - Sanjay Sudan v. ACIT is the decision in this library on the point.
On the change of statute, the department's own transition note records that "All the TDS sections (Section 192 to 194T) in the Income Tax Act, 1961 are now consolidated under two sections, section 392 and section 393 of the income Tax Act, 2025." The 2025 Act equivalents of s.192(1A) and s.10(10CC) were not located on any page read.
Employees arrive at this with a moral argument - no cash came in, so no tax should go out - and there is nothing in s.192 that answers it. Knowing that the only levers are the employer's spreading power, the employer's option to bear the tax, and a certificate applied for in advance, changes the conversation from a complaint about the deduction into three asks that can actually be made, and made in time.
The TDS officer says I under-deducted under s.192. If my estimate was made honestly, does that answer the demand, the interest and the penalty?
My employees exercised stock options but the shares are locked in and non-transferable. Was I supposed to deduct tax on the market value less what they paid?
As an employer, must I collect bills and tickets from employees before treating leave travel concession or conveyance allowance as exempt while deducting tax under section 192?
My client is an employer facing a s.201 order for not deducting on LTC where the employees' itineraries included a foreign leg but the reimbursement was limited to the domestic shortest-route fare. Is the bona fide estimate defence available?
The deductor deducted my tax and never deposited it. The Assessing Officer says he cannot give me credit until the money reaches the treasury, and has attached my bank account. Is he right on both counts?
My client is a bank officer taxed on a deemed concession in rent for the bank's quarters even though the market rent is lower than the percentage of salary applied. Is the deeming provision open to challenge?
My tenant deducted tax from my rent but never paid it over or gave me a Form 16A. The department is now recovering it from me - can it?
The officer has passed a s.154 order shifting my TDS credit to the next year because the payer's accounting year is different from mine. Can he do that by rectification?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.