Section 192

Section 192 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 192, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• State Bank of India v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme CourtHelps department
  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?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the moment an employee undertakes travel with a foreign leg it is not travel within India and the payment is outside s.10(5), so the employer was bound to deduct under s.192(1) and was rightly held an assessee in default. It rejected the argument that the reimbursement having been confined to the shortest domestic route saved the exemption, and it rejected the bona fide mistake defence because the employer had the complete travel details before it when settling the bills.
• ITC Ltd v CIT (TDS) Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our restaurant and banquet bills carry a tip that the customer adds on the card. The money lands in our bank account and we hand it to the staff with their wages. The department says that is salary we should have deducted on. Is it?
  No. The Supreme Court held that a tip is not salary at all, and that the route it travels — cash into the waiter's hand or a card entry through the employer's bank account — makes no difference. Section 15(b) taxes what is paid or allowed by or on behalf of an employer, and the word employer presupposes a contract of employment; the employee has no vested right to claim a tip from his employer, and the amount has no reference to his contract of employment. The employer receives the money in a fiduciary capacity as trustee and is only a conduit between customer and staff. The tip is the employee's income from other sources under section 56(1). Section 192 is therefore not attracted, the employer is not an assessee in default, and no interest under section 201(1A) arises.
• CIT v Eli Lilly & Co (India) P Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  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?
  It answers the penalty, not the tax and not the interest. The Supreme Court treated s.192(1) as requiring the employer to estimate the salary — an exercise akin to computation — and held that where there was a shortfall the officer proceeds under s.201(1) to recover it and interest under s.201(1A) runs from the date the tax was deductible to the date the tax was actually paid. On penalty it held that s.271C should not be invoked where the issue was a nascent one and the employers had acted bona fide.
• CIT v Larsen & Toubro Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  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?
  No. The Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeals on 21 January 2009, holding that an employer is under no statutory obligation, under the Act or the Rules, to collect evidence that its employees actually spent the amounts paid as leave travel concession or conveyance allowance. Two reasons are given. The beneficiary of the exemption under section 10(5) is the individual employee, not the employer. And there is no circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes requiring an employer, when deducting under section 192, to collect and examine material supporting the declaration the employee submits. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
• CIT v Infosys Technologies Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  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?
  No, on the law as it stood before 1 April 2000. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and held that the company was not an assessee in default. The shares were locked in for five years, held by the trust, stamped non-transferable and notified as such to the stock exchange, and had to be returned if the employee left. They had no realisable value on the date the option was exercised and there was no cash inflow, so any benefit was notional and its value unascertainable. Section 17(2)(iiia), which supplied the missing valuation mechanism from 1 April 2000, was held not to be clarificatory or retrospective.
• Ram Pershad v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I am the managing director of my own company. I draw a monthly amount, a car allowance and a percentage of gross profits. Is the percentage salary, or can I show it as my own business income?
  On an agreement of this kind it is salary. The Supreme Court held that ten per cent of gross profits payable to a managing director under his appointment agreement was chargeable under section 7 of the 1922 Act as salary, not under section 10 as business income. There is no single test. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master and an agent does not, but that is only a rough and ready test, and the answer turns on the nature of the business and the nature of the duties. A managing director has a dual capacity - director and employee - and which he is depends on the articles of association and the terms of his employment. Here the company itself carried on the business, he could be dismissed if his work was unsatisfactory, and he exercised his powers within the limits the articles set and subject to the control of the board whose decisions he carried out.
• Hosur Bata Employees Union v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My clients settled a wage dispute and took VRS and compensation for loss of future salary in two instalments. The company deducted TDS on the whole amount without giving s.89 relief. Can we make the employer refund it?
  No — not from the employer. The Madras High Court held that the employer cannot be found at fault for deducting tax at source in the absence of an application in Form 10E under Rule 21A, because s.192(2A) is what obliges the employer to compute and give s.89 relief and it operates only on the particulars the employee furnishes. The Court's remedy was to direct the employees to file returns under s.139(1) within thirty days and the Income Tax Officer to process them under s.143(1) and refund within two months.
• CIT v Dr Balabhai Nanavati Hospital High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  After a survey the TDS officer says my consultant doctors are employees and wants 192 instead of 194J. Is he right?
  Not on these facts, and only part of the case was decided. On the doctors the High Court found no substantial question of law: they are appointed on probation for qualification and specialisation, receive no fixed monthly remuneration, are free to practise at other hospitals, get no PF or ESIC and no perquisites, attend according to patients' needs, and the hospital exercises no real supervisory control; the doctors had also returned the receipts as business or professional income. The separate maintenance-contract question was not answered — the Tribunal's order on it was set aside and the matter sent back for a contract-by-contract finding, and the assessee-in-default question on that limb goes with it.
• Manjeet Singh Chawla v Dy CIT (TDS) High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  If the payment for the fall in option value is not salary, is it capital gains?
  On this decision, neither. The Karnataka High Court held that compensation for the diminution in value of stock options that were never exercised is a capital receipt not chargeable under any head, and quashed the order rejecting the employee's application for a nil withholding certificate.
• All India Central Bank Officers Federation v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  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?
  Not on the grounds run so far. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions by bank officers' associations challenging Explanations 1 to 4 below s.17(2) inserted by the Finance Act 2007 with limited retrospective effect. It held the legal fiction is not an impermissible legislative override of Arun Kumar v Union of India, that the retrospectivity is valid, and that classifying by city population and measuring the concession as a percentage of salary does not offend Article 14.
• Binod Pattanayak v Union of India High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My s.276B prosecution for late deposit of TDS is pending and the CBDT has issued fresh compounding guidelines dated 17 October 2024. Will the High Court still quash the complaint under s.482 CrPC?
  On this order, not as a matter of course. The Orissa High Court, having read clauses 4.6 and 8.3 of the CBDT's guidelines of 17 October 2024, took the view that the Department has now harmonised the procedure for compounding offences under the Act arising out of curable defects, and that in the present regime, where compounding of the offence is permissible, the inherent jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC need not necessarily be invoked. The petition was disposed of with liberty to seek compounding, and with a direction that the application be considered on its merits uninfluenced by the Court's observations.
• Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta v Dy CIT High CourtHelps departmentUnder appeal
  Is compensation for the fall in value of stock options taxable as salary if I keep the options?
  Yes, on this decision. The Madras High Court held that where the employee paid nothing for the options and kept all of them after receiving the compensation, the whole receipt was a perquisite taxable under the head Salaries, and refused the nil-deduction certificate sought under s.197.
• Sanjay Baweja v Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My employer paid me for the fall in value of options I never exercised. Is that a perquisite?
  No, on this decision. The Delhi High Court held that a one-time voluntary payment made to holders of unexercised stock options after a group disinvestment was not a perquisite under s.17(2)(vi), because the value of specified securities depends on the exercise of the option and no option had been exercised. The refusal of a nil-deduction certificate under s.197 was set aside.
• Sanjay Sudan v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My employer deducted TDS but never deposited it. The department has raised a demand on me and set my later refund off against it. Can it do that?
  No. s.205 bars a direct demand on the person from whose income the tax was deducted, and the Court held that adjusting a later year's refund against that demand is an indirect recovery of the same tax. The demand notice and the adjustment were quashed and the refund directed to be released.
• Dr Mathew Cherian v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I'm a consultant doctor at a hospital. Can the AO reopen and tax my fees as salary?
  Not on this material. The Madras High Court set aside the s.148A(d) order and s.148 notice: the contracts showed professional autonomy, a variable fee tied to patient volume, no statutory employment benefits and freedom to practise privately, so there was no information suggesting escapement of income.
• State Bank of India v ACIT (TDS) High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  Staff booked a consolidated package tour with a foreign leg. Can we exempt the Indian part as LTC?
  No. Where the tour operator charges a consolidated amount for the whole journey including the domestic portion, there is no severable Indian leg on which s.10(5) can operate, and the employer was rightly treated as an assessee in default under s.201(1) and s.201(1A).
• Hosmat Hospital P Ltd v ACIT High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  I engage salaried doctors, in-house consultants and visiting consultants. Can the officer treat them all alike?
  No — but you get a rehearing, not a finding. The Karnataka High Court set aside the Tribunal order treating the hospital as an assessee in default and remitted the matter, holding that the AO must reconsider the question with attention to the hospital's incentive policy and the returns the doctors actually filed.
• CIT (TDS) v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I am the employer. I treated the uniform allowance as exempt on my employees' self-certification and did not call for bills. The TDS officer has made me an assessee in default under s.201. Was I obliged to verify that each employee actually spent the money?
  No. The High Court held that the employer's liability under s.192 is to deduct tax to the extent of the employee's taxable income, and that where part of that income is exempt there is no liability to deduct from it. A certificate from the employee that he has incurred the expenditure is adequate for the disbursing officer when computing the tax deductible; whether the employee can in fact substantiate the claim is a matter for the employee's own assessment and has no bearing on the employer's estimate. The demand under s.201(1) and the consequential interest were rightly deleted.
• Pr. CIT (TDS) v National Health and Education Society — hospital consultants' fees fall under s.194J, not s.192 High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The TDS officer says our consultant doctors are really employees, that their fees are salary, and that we should have deducted under s.192 instead of s.194J. Is he right?
  Not on these facts. The hospital engaged Hospital Based Consultants and deducted under s.194J. The Assessing Officer held they were employees, that s.192 applied, and passed orders under s.201 treating the hospital as in default; the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal went against him on that point and the Revenue appealed under s.260A. The Bombay High Court held the question squarely covered by its own earlier Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Pune v Grant Medical Foundation (Ruby Hall Clinic), where the same Court had held that no relationship of employer and employee existed between a hospital and its consultant doctors and had answered the question in favour of the assessee. No substantial question of law arose, and all six appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. Questions on s.194C versus s.194J for outsourced services and on drug handling charges were held to turn on findings of fact, and a question on the time limit for orders under s.201(1) was left open as academic.
• National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  LIC has started deducting tax on the conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance paid to development officers. Can the employees stop the deduction on the footing that the allowances are exempt under s.10(14)?
  The Orissa High Court said no and dismissed the writ petition. It held that after the 1987 amendment to s.10(14) and the insertion of Rule 2BB, the entire conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance are not exempt unless the expenses are actually incurred and that is proved to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer; the employer remains bound to deduct under s.192, and the employee must establish the exemption in his own assessment.
• SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 v Union of India High CourtCuts both ways
  My VRS compensation is being paid to me in instalments over ten years. Does the section 10(10C) exemption still apply, or is it lost once the payments cross into later years?
  It still applies. The Calcutta High Court held that the whole compensation became due when the employee was released under the scheme and was chargeable under section 15(a) at that point, whether paid or not. Spreading the payment over ten years does not turn the later instalments into salary of those later years, so the second proviso to section 10(10C) is not attracted. The exemption up to Rs 5 lakh runs on the compensation component alone. Terminal benefits paid under the same scheme, such as gratuity and leave encashment, are not part of the amount received on voluntary retirement and are not covered.
• Life Insurance Corporation of India v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  Is there any High Court authority the other way on the LIC development officers' conveyance and additional conveyance allowance, and how far does it actually go?
  Yes. The Rajasthan High Court held that development officers of the LIC are entitled to claim exemption under s.10(14) for conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance, and directed the Department not to insist on the LIC deducting tax at source on them. But the holding is expressly conditional: it applies only upon the officers satisfying that the allowances were actually spent wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of duties, and the Court twice said the ultimate liability of claiming and proving the exemption is on the employee.
• Gwalior Rayon Silk v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The TDS officer says I under-deducted on perquisites and wants the short tax under section 201(1) plus interest under section 201(1A). My estimate was honest. Does that answer the demand or only the penalty?
  It answers the demand itself. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that section 192 obliges the employer to deduct on the estimated income of the employee, so the employer has to form an opinion on his employee's liability and must do so honestly and fairly. If the estimate later turns out to be wrong, that fact alone does not support an inference that he failed to act honestly and fairly, and an employer who has deducted and paid tax on an honest estimate cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1). Interest under section 201(1A) went with it, the revenue accepting that sub-section (1A) is not attracted where there is no default under sub-section (1).
• Pramod Kumar Jain v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The company bought back my vested options before I exercised them. Salary or capital gains?
  Capital gains, on this order, and on a fact that does real work. The shares of the Singapore parent were not listed, so the assessee could never exercise his options. Section 17(2)(vi) charges the value of a specified security allotted or transferred to the employee and values it on the date the option is exercised; with no exercise and no allotment there was no specified security and no way to value one, so the salary charge failed. The vested option was itself a capital asset - a right to subscribe to shares - and its repurchase was a relinquishment, so the consideration fell under s.45. The Tribunal said in terms that this leaves the ordinary case alone: exercise the option and the perquisite charge applies as usual.
• ManpowerGroup Services India v ACIT — staffing company's deputed employees qualify for s.80JJAA, and a one-day Form 10DA delay was condoned ITATHelps taxpayer
  My client is a staffing company. The Assessing Officer says the people it hires and deputes to clients are not its employees, and separately that Form 10DA was a day late. Both grounds together have killed the whole s.80JJAA claim.
  The Delhi Tribunal held for the assessee on both grounds for AY 2020-21. On the substantive point it held that the assessee is the employer of the personnel it employs and deputes, and that the employer-employee relationship is not to be intertwined with the service arrangement that gives the customer a mechanical and temporary right to supervise the work; it therefore held the assessee satisfies all the eligibility criteria under the amended s.80JJAA and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction. On the procedural point it condoned a one-day delay in filing Form 10DA, which was due on 15 January 2021 against the extended return due date of 15 February 2021 and was filed on 16 January 2021. The claim spanning the first, second and third years was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify the second and third year components.
• ELCA Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v DCIT — the RSU cost cross-charged by the overseas group company is an actual cash outflow and is deductible under s.37(1) ITATHelps taxpayer
  My Indian company reimburses its overseas parent for the cost of restricted stock units given to our employees, and we deduct tax on the perquisite in their hands. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the reimbursement as notional and capital. Is it deductible?
  It was held deductible on these facts — and the employees' side of this is stage one, the perquisite that arises when the group company's shares reach them, this entry being about the company's mirror-image deduction for the cost it bears. The Delhi Tribunal held that where the overseas group company grants its stock to the Indian company's employees and recovers the cost from the Indian company, the cost is an actual cash outflow and not notional or contingent, and the compensation paid in the form of employee stock option expenditure is allowable as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Ground 2 of the appeal was allowed.
• ACIT v Bidhan Chandra Choudhary — the merchant banker's Rule 3(8)(iii) value fixes the sweat equity perquisite, and a foreign investor's DCF price paid a month later cannot be substituted ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My employer valued my unlisted sweat equity shares through a merchant banker, but the Assessing Officer says the company sold shares to a foreign investor a month later at a far higher price and has taxed me on the difference. Can he do that?
  No, on these facts — and this is stage one, the perquisite that arises on exercise under s.17(2)(vi). The Tribunal held that where the shares are unlisted the fair market value is the value determined by the merchant banker under Rule 3(8)(iii), and that a price fixed under the Reserve Bank of India's foreign direct investment pricing guidelines on a discounted free cash flow basis for an issue to a non-resident investor cannot be substituted for it, because the two sets of provisions deal with altogether different situations. The Revenue's appeal against deletion of a perquisite addition of Rs 4,53,18,900 was dismissed.
• ACIT (TDS) v Sula Vineyards Pvt Ltd — for unlisted shares the Rule 3(8) merchant banker value governs the ESOP perquisite, and a genuine sale at a much higher price to an unrelated party does not displace it ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The TDS officer says my employer under-deducted on my ESOP perquisite because the company's shares actually changed hands at Rs 850 while the merchant banker valued them at Rs 194. Which figure fixes the perquisite?
  The merchant banker's figure — and this is stage one, the perquisite on exercise under s.17(2)(vi). The Tribunal held that on a plain reading of Rule 3(8) the fair market value of an unlisted company's shares is the value determined by a merchant banker, so an actual arm's length sale of the same company's shares at Rs 850 during the same year gave the Revenue no basis for recomputing the perquisite. The Revenue's appeal against deletion of a short-deduction demand of Rs 2,62,34,000 was dismissed.
• Unnikrishnan V S v ITO (International Taxation) — an ESOP benefit accrues where the qualifying services were rendered, so a non-resident who was granted options for work done in India is taxed here on exercise ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client is a non-resident now. He exercised options granted years ago while he worked in India, and his employer deducted tax. Can he claim the perquisite did not accrue in India, or take treaty protection?
  No, on these facts — and this is stage one, the perquisite on exercise under s.17(2)(vi). The Tribunal held that the benefit accrued and arose in India at the time the options were GRANTED, in consideration of services rendered in India, even though s.17(2)(vi) brings it to tax only in the year of exercise. Article 15 of the India-UAE treaty gave no protection because the employment to which the benefit related was exercised in India, and the taxpayer's own authorities pointed the other way. Both appeals were dismissed.
• NXP India Pvt Ltd v DCIT — the Dispute Resolution Panel's theory that the employee is charged at VESTING, so the employer's stock compensation cost must be disallowed for non-deduction, did not survive; but the Tribunal's own reasoning will not bear weight ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Dispute Resolution Panel says that because ESOP expenditure is allowable to the employer at vesting, the perquisite must be taxable in the employee's hands at vesting too, and has disallowed our stock compensation cost because we deducted only on exercise. Is there authority on that?
  There is one order on stage one — the perquisite that arises on employee share benefits — and it went against the Panel, but a practitioner should read it with care. It concerns the Panel's argument that the employee's charge follows the employer's deduction to the vesting date. The Bangalore Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground and deleted the disallowance of Rs 65,23,426 of stock compensation expense. Its stated reason, however, rests on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd., which construed the law as it stood before 1 April 2000, and the concluding paragraph contradicts itself on whether that decision applies. The value of the order is that the Panel's vesting theory did not prevail; its reasoning is not a foundation for advice.
• Krishnan Achary v ITO ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client took the State Bank's exit option and claimed Rs 5 lakh under s.10(10C). The officer says the scheme does not meet rule 2BA. Is partial compliance enough?
  No. Compliance with s.10(10C) and rule 2BA is cumulative, and satisfying some of the six requirements does not entitle the employee to the exemption. Where the employer's own certificate described the payment as ex gratia under an 'Exit Option Scheme', said the amount would be added to income and tax deducted at source, and said nothing about rule 2BA, the Cochin Bench held the exemption was not available.
• ACIT v SDV International Logistics Ltd ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My employees claim HRA and home loan interest together. Must I treat that as a double benefit?
  No, not on these facts. The point was ground 2 of a composite order under s.201 and s.271C. The first appellate authority had held the exemption and the interest deduction to be two independent provisions, each with its own conditions, and the Tribunal upheld that because the department could not controvert it, so the short deduction and the consequential penalty both fell away. The employees concerned had let out the houses they owned and were living in rented premises, with the whole of the interest set against rental income and the exemption claimed on the rent they actually paid.
• Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd v DCIT (TDS) — s.17(2)(vi) fixes only the VALUE of the ESOP perquisite; the s.192 withholding obligation arises when the shares are actually allotted ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My employee exercised his options in one year but the shares were only allotted in the next, after he satisfied conditions in his separation agreement. In which year was I obliged to deduct tax under s.192?
  This is stage one — the perquisite on exercise — and the Tribunal drew a line between valuing it and withholding on it. It held that the amended s.17(2)(vi) is only to determine the VALUE of the ESOP transaction, and that the obligation to withhold under s.192 accrues only when the shares are ALLOTTED after the person who exercised the option has completed his commitments; a mere exercise is only acceptance of a general proposal. The assessee's appeal against a short-deduction order was allowed.
• DDE ORG Systems (P) Ltd v ACIT (TDS) ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  We pay our staff a fixed monthly attire allowance and washing allowance and treat it as exempt under s.10(14). Nobody actually wears a uniform. Can the TDS officer make us an assessee in default?
  Yes. The Tribunal held that Rule 2BB(1)(f) exempts expenditure incurred on the purchase or maintenance of a uniform for wear during the performance of duties, and that where the employees wore dress of different colour, different design and texture according to their own choice, there was no uniform and nothing to show the allowance was granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties. Tax was required to be deducted on both the attire allowance and the washing allowance, and the employer was in default under s.201(1).
• Statutory position — s.194J: two per cent on technical fees and film royalty, ten per cent on everything else, and a fifty thousand rupee threshold that never reaches a director CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I pay a consultant, I pay an engineering firm for technical work, and I pay my company's non-executive director a sitting fee. Do I deduct two per cent or ten per cent on each, and does the fifty thousand rupee limit apply to all three?
  Section 194J does not have one rate. Since 1 April 2020 it has two, and which one you use depends on which limb of sub-section (1) the payment falls into: two per cent for fees for technical services that are not professional services and for royalty that is consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films; ten per cent for everything else the section catches — professional fees, director's remuneration, other royalty and a non-compete sum under s.28(va) — and two per cent again, under a separate proviso, where the payee is engaged only in the business of operation of a call centre. The threshold in the first proviso is fifty thousand rupees, raised from thirty thousand by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025, and it is set out limb by limb for clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) only — clause (ba), the director limb, is not in that list, so a single rupee of director's fee carries tax. An individual or Hindu undivided family is outside the section altogether unless the second proviso pulls them back in, and then only for fees for professional or technical services. All of this governs a sum credited or paid up to 31 March 2026: the Income-tax Act, 1961 stands repealed on 1 April 2026, and for a payment on or after that date the governing provision is section 393(1), Table, Serial No. 6(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which carries the same two rates and the same fifty thousand rupee threshold.
• CBDT Circular No. 3/2025 - salary TDS for FY 2024-25 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Is there one document that tells the payroll department how to deduct on salary for the year?
  Yes. The Board issues an annual circular under s.192 and this is the one for financial year 2024-25. It consolidates the rates, the amendments made by the Finance Acts of 2023 and 2024, and the mechanics of the employer's deduction, and states that where no amendment has been made the position in the earlier circular for financial year 2022-23 continues.
• Statutory position — s.192: the employer deducts at the average rate on his own estimate of the year's salary, and the declarations exist to correct the estimate CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I run payroll. Section 192 has no threshold and no percentage in it like every other TDS section does — so how much am I supposed to deduct, and which of my employee's declarations am I actually obliged to act on?
  Section 192 does not work like the rest of Chapter XVII-B: there is no threshold below which you need not deduct and no flat percentage to apply. You deduct, at the time of payment, "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" — that is, you build the employee's whole year's salary, work out the tax on it at the slab rates, divide that tax by that salary, and apply the resulting rate to each payment. Everything else in the section exists to make that estimate accurate: sub-section (2) lets the employee bring in salary from another employer in Form 12B, (2A) lets him bring in relief under section 89 in Form 10E, (2B) lets him bring in other income, other tax deducted or collected and a house property loss in Form 12BAA, (2D) obliges you to collect evidence of his claims in Form 12BB, and (2C) obliges you to give him back a statement of his perquisites in Form 12BA. Sub-sections (1A) and (1B) let you choose to pay the tax on a non-monetary perquisite yourself instead of deducting it, and section 115BAC(1A) is the default regime from assessment year 2024-25, so your estimate is made under it unless the employee tells you otherwise. This is the section as it stood after Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024; it governs salary paid up to 31 March 2026, after which section 392 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 takes over.
• Statutory position — s.197: the Assessing Officer may certify a lower rate, or nil, for a listed section, but only on the payee's application and only for a period of the previous year — the 1961 Act position, for deductions up to 31 March 2026 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My money is stuck. Every invoice I raise has tax deducted at the full rate, my actual tax for the year is far less than the deductions, and I only get it back a year later when the refund comes. Somebody told me to apply for a lower-deduction certificate under section 197. What does section 197 actually say — which payments does it cover, what does the Assessing Officer have to be satisfied about, what form do I file, and can the certificate be backdated to cover the deductions already made?
  Section 197(1) lets the payee apply to the Assessing Officer for a certificate that the payer may deduct at a lower rate, or not at all. It is not open-ended: it works only for the sections named in it, and the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that “the total income of the recipient justifies” the lower rate. The list is sections 192, 193, 194, 194A, 194C, 194D, 194G, 194H, 194-I, 194J, 194K, 194LA, 194LBA, 194LBB, 194LBC, 194M, 194-O, 194Q and 195 — 194LBA was added by Act No. 8 of 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023 and 194Q by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024. Section 197(2) then binds the payer: once a certificate is given, he deducts at the certified rate, or nothing, until the Assessing Officer cancels it. Section 197(2A) is the rule-making power, and the rules made under it are rule 28 (application in Form No. 13, filed electronically), rule 28AA (how the rate is worked out and how long the certificate lasts) and rule 28AB (a no-deduction certificate for trusts and other section 139(4C) filers). Nothing in the section or the rules confers a power to backdate a certificate, and in substance it operates forward: rule 28AA(4) sends it to the named deductor, who cannot un-deduct months already past. From 1 April 2026 this machinery is gone — the Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed by section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and the successor is section 395 of the 2025 Act, applied for in Form No. 128 under rule 213 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026, and from the same date section 395(6) lets that application go to a prescribed income-tax authority instead of the Assessing Officer.
• Statutory position — s.192A: ten per cent on a premature provident fund withdrawal, a fifty thousand rupee floor, and the Fourth Schedule rule that decides whether the section applies at all CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  I left my job after three years and withdrew my EPF balance. The trustees deducted tax and I have no Form 16. On what was the deduction made, and what happens because I had not given my PAN?
  Section 192A bites only where the accumulated balance is taxable, and it is rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule that decides that. The section requires the trustees of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, framed under section 5 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or any person authorised under the scheme to make payment of accumulated balance due to employees, to deduct income-tax at ten per cent where the accumulated balance due to an employee participating in a recognised provident fund is includible in his total income owing to the provisions of rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule not being applicable, and to do so at the time of payment. The only proviso now in the section sets a floor: no deduction where the amount of the payment, or the aggregate amount of the payment to the payee, is less than fifty thousand rupees. The second proviso, which required a Permanent Account Number and imposed the maximum marginal rate in its absence, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023, so the consequence of no PAN is now whatever section 206AA produces.
• Statutory position — s.89 with Rule 21A and Rule 21AA: the five categories of relief on arrears, the proviso that forfeits relief where the s.10(10C) exemption has been claimed, and what Rule 21AA actually says about Form 10E CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client received salary arrears and family pension arrears in one year and has been pushed into a higher slab. What relief is available, how is it computed, and is Form 10E a precondition?
  Section 89 gives relief where an assessee receives a sum in the nature of salary paid in arrears or in advance, or salary for more than twelve months in one financial year, or a payment which under s.17(3) is a profit in lieu of salary, or a sum in the nature of family pension as defined in the Explanation to s.57(iia) paid in arrears, and his total income is on that account assessed at a higher rate; the Assessing Officer must, on an application, grant such relief as may be prescribed. Rule 21A prescribes five different computations depending on which of five categories the payment falls into. On Form 10E, be precise: Rule 21AA says that an assessee entitled to relief under section 89 "may furnish to the person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of section 192" the particulars specified in Form No. 10E — it is expressed as a permission, and it is directed at the employer for the purposes of tax deduction, not in terms as a condition precedent to the relief.
• Statutory position — s.17(2)(vi): stage one of the employee share charge, the perquisite on exercise, and what a "specified security" and a "sweat equity share" are CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My employer put a large ESOP figure in my Form 16 in the year I exercised my options, even though I have not sold a single share. On what provision is that being taxed, and how is the amount worked out?
  This is stage one of a two-stage charge. On the day you EXERCISE the option, s.17(2)(vi) makes the difference between the fair market value of the share on that date and the amount you actually paid a perquisite, taxable as salary — whether or not you sell anything, and whether or not you receive any cash. Stage two comes later, on sale, when the difference between the sale price and that same fair market value is a capital gain, with the cost of acquisition fixed by s.49(2AA) at the value already taxed here. The fair market value on the date of exercise is the hinge between the two stages, and it is fixed by Rule 3(8) and Rule 3(9).
• Statutory position — s.192(1C), s.191(2) and s.156(2): the eligible start-up ESOP deferral, its three triggers, the fourteen-day period, and the fact that it defers the employee's own tax too CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client works for a start-up and has exercised his options. He has no cash and the shares cannot be sold. Is there any deferral, and does it cover his own tax or only his employer's TDS?
  This is stage one — the perquisite on exercise — and yes, there is a deferral, but only where the employer is an eligible start-up referred to in s.80-IAC. It covers BOTH sides. Section 192(1C) defers the employer's obligation to deduct or pay tax on the perquisite, and s.191(2) defers the employee's own obligation to pay income-tax on it directly, in identical terms; s.156(2) defers payment of the tax or interest included in a notice of demand on the same income. In every one of the three, the tax must be paid within FOURTEEN DAYS of the EARLIEST of three events: the expiry of forty-eight months from the end of the relevant assessment year; the date of sale of the specified security or sweat equity share; and the date the employee ceases to be the employee. All three sub-sections apply to income of an assessment year beginning on or after 1 April 2021, and all three were inserted by the Finance Act, 2020, which came into force on 1 April 2020.
• Statutory position — restricted stock units: what s.17(2)(vi), Rule 3(8) and s.2(42A) actually say about them, and the express statement that no authority fixing the charging point at vesting was found CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client is paid partly in restricted stock units of a US parent. Everyone tells me RSUs are taxed on vesting rather than on exercise. Is there authority for that in Indian law?
  None has been found, and this entry — which is about stage one, the perquisite charge — says so expressly rather than reasoning by analogy from options. What the Act does say is this. Stage one, s.17(2)(vi), charges "the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to the assessee" — words wide enough on their face to catch shares of a foreign parent delivered to an Indian employee without payment. But the VALUATION machinery is written around an option: Explanation (c) values the security "on the date on which the option is exercised by the assessee", Explanation (e) defines "option" as "a right but not an obligation granted to an employee to apply for the specified security or sweat equity shares at a predetermined price", and Rule 3(8)(i) and Rule 3(9) both fix the fair market value "on the date on which the option is exercised by the employee". Stage two is clearer: s.49(2AA) makes the cost the value taken into account at stage one, and s.2(42A) Explanation 1(i)(hb) runs the holding period from the date of allotment or transfer.
• Statutory position — Rule 3(8) and Rule 3(9): how the fair market value of an ESOP or sweat equity share is fixed on the date of exercise, including the merchant banker's specified date CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The Assessing Officer says my ESOP perquisite should have been computed on a higher share value than my employer used. What is the prescribed method for fixing the fair market value on the date I exercised?
  This is stage one — the fair market value that fixes the perquisite under s.17(2)(vi) on exercise. For an equity share LISTED on a recognised stock exchange, Rule 3(8)(ii) takes the AVERAGE OF THE OPENING PRICE AND THE CLOSING PRICE of the share on the date of exercise on that exchange; where it is listed on more than one exchange, the exchange with the highest volume of trading in the share; and where there is no trading in the share at all on the date of exercise, the closing price on the recognised stock exchange on the date closest to and immediately preceding the exercise date. For an equity share NOT listed, Rule 3(8)(iii) takes such value as is determined by a merchant banker on the "specified date", and Rule 3(9) applies the same merchant-banker method to a specified security that is not an equity share. The "specified date" is the date of exercise, or any earlier date NOT MORE THAN 180 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF EXERCISE — this is the point most often got wrong.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.