Year: 2026

India’s four Labour Codes—the Code on Wages, 2019, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Code on Social Security, 2020, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020—seek to consolidate 29 central labour laws into a unified framework governing wages, industrial relations, social security and workplace safety. The Codes have been passed and notified, but are yet to be brought into force; implementation will follow separate commencement notifications, and recent policy statements indicate an intention to make them fully operational from 1 April 2026, after re-publication and finalisation of rules by the Centre and States.

The reforms introduce several cross cutting features: a uniform definition of “wages” with a 50% cap on specified exclusions; broader definitions of “worker” and “employee”; an inspector cum facilitator regime; digitisation of registers and returns through portals such as Shram Suvidha; and a common licensing framework, particularly relevant for contract labour and inter State migrant work. At the Code specific level, key changes include a statutory floor wage and universalised wage coverage, expanded social security to gig and platform workers funded partly by aggregator contributions, higher thresholds for prior permission on lay off and closure and for standing orders, recognition of a sole negotiating union with 51% membership, rationalised applicability thresholds under the OSH Code, and formal recognition of fixed term employment.

For professionals, three areas deserve immediate attention: restructuring of CTCs and payroll systems around the new wage definition; re assessment of contract labour and outsourcing strategies in light of new thresholds and licensing; and readiness for digital compliance and transitional issues once commencement notifications are issued. The Codes have the potential to ease doing business and extend social protection, but their success will depend on state-level rule-making, administrative capacity, and how stakeholders navigate the trade offs between flexibility and security.

1. INTRODUCTION

For decades, India’s labour law landscape has been characterised by a dense web of central and state statutes, many with overlapping subject matter, conflicting definitions and dated assumptions about the nature of work. Employers have struggled with fragmented compliance and multiple inspections, while a large majority of the workforce, especially in the unorganised and informal sectors, has remained outside effective social security coverage.

The four Labour Codes are designed to move from a purely regulatory mindset to a facilitative, risk-based framework, recognising contemporary forms of work such as platform work and fixed-term employment. All four Codes have received Presidential assent and stand notified in the Gazette, but they will come into force only on dates to be appointed by separate notifications under the respective commencement provisions. Recent ministerial statements and press releases indicate that the government’s present plan is to make the Codes fully operational from 1 April 2026, aligning with the financial year and allowing time to finalise central and state rules.

The principal reason for the delay has been the federal nature of labour as a Concurrent List subject: the Centre must frame rules on matters within its ambit, while States and Union Territories must frame their own rules where empowered. As of late 2025, most States and UTs have pre-published draft rules under some or all of the Codes, but a small number still lag behind, and several jurisdictions are revisiting their drafts in light of stakeholder feedback. This staggered readiness explains why commencement has been repeatedly deferred, despite the Codes having been passed in 2019–2020.

2. KEY THEMES CUTTING ACROSS ALL CODES

Broader definitions of “worker” and “employee.”

Across the Codes, the definitions of “worker” and “employee” are significantly broader than in many legacy statutes, generally covering persons employed in any industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, subject to specified wage ceilings for certain categories. This enlarged coverage is particularly relevant for supervisory and middle management layers that were previously excluded under some laws by virtue of salary thresholds or nature of duties tests.

For advisory and litigation practice, this implies that classification disputes may shift from the question of “workman versus non-workman” to the precise application of statutory exclusions and state-specific rules. Employers will need to revisit designation structures and job descriptions to ensure they align with the new definitions.

Uniform definition of “wages” and the 50% rule

Perhaps the single most consequential reform is the adoption of a uniform definition of “wages” across all four Codes. While details differ slightly between Codes, the core construct is common: wages include basic pay and dearness allowance and specified components, while certain allowances and benefits are expressly excluded; however, if the aggregate value of such exclusions exceeds 50% of total remuneration, the excess is deemed to form part of wages.

This “50% rule” directly affects calculations for provident fund, gratuity, bonus, retrenchment compensation and other wage-linked benefits, substantially limiting the scope to depress contribution-bearing wage elements by inflating allowances. For many Indian CTC structures—traditionally built around a relatively low “basic + DA” portion with multiple allowances—this will translate into higher long-term social security costs, lower immediate take-home for employees, and a need for complete redesign of salary templates.

Inspector cum facilitator and digitisation

All four Codes envisage a shift from the conventional “Inspector Raj” to an inspector cum facilitator model, emphasising guidance and graded enforcement before prosecution in many situations. Inspection schemes are to be computerised and risk based, with provisions for web based scheduling, random selection and online submission of documents.

Digitisation is a central theme: electronic registers, e returns and online licences are encouraged or mandated, with the Shram Suvidha portal and linked systems expected to play a central role in unified filings. While larger enterprises may find this consistent with existing HRIS/ERP practices, smaller establishments will need to build digital competencies and address issues such as data accuracy, security and document retention.

Common licensing and single registration

The Codes introduce a move towards common licensing, particularly for contractors and staffing entities, and single registration for establishments covered by the OSH provisions. Instead of multiple location specific licences under different Acts (for example, separate contract labour licences for individual sites), a single licence may cover multiple establishments, subject to prescribed conditions.

Similarly, the OSH Code enables one registration for an establishment carrying on more than one activity that would previously have required distinct registrations (such as factory, motor transport and contract labour). This is intended to simplify compliance and make growth across locations easier, but also raises the bar for centralised compliance management within organisations.

3. THE CODE ON WAGES, 2019

Consolidation and coverage

The Code on Wages consolidates four key enactments: the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Bonus Act and the Equal Remuneration Act. A significant change is that the Code applies to all employees across all sectors for its wage related provisions, moving away from the earlier concept of “scheduled employments” under the Minimum Wages Act.

This universalisation reduces fragmentation and makes it easier to understand wage obligations vis à vis different categories of employees; however, detailed state specific minimum wages and rules will still require careful attention by employers with multi state operations.

National floor wage and minimum wage

The Wage Code introduces a statutory national floor wage to be fixed by the Central Government, taking into account factors such as living standards and geographical differences. States will continue to fix minimum wages for different skill levels and industries, but cannot set them below the notified floor wage.

The distinction between the central floor wage and state minimum wages is important in advisory work, especially when analysing cross border wage disparities and potential relocations of labour intensive activities. The floor wage is intended to reduce extreme regional differentials while allowing states to respond to local cost of living conditions.

Wage definition, overtime and payment modes

Under the Wage Code, the uniform wage definition and 50% cap on exclusions determine the base for overtime, bonus and other wage linked entitlements. Overtime pay must be at least double the normal rate of wages, requiring payroll systems to correctly compute overtime on the statutory wage base, including any deemed additions under the 50% rule.

The Code also rationalises wage periods, prescribes time limits for payment, and clarifies permissible deductions, while facilitating digital payment modes and electronic record keeping. This aligns wage practice with broader financial inclusion and digitisation policies.

Impact on CTC structuring

From a practitioner’s standpoint, the 50% rule is the central driver of CTC impact under the Wage Code. Employers must map each pay component to either the “wage” or “exclusion” bucket, simulate the impact on provident fund, gratuity and other benefits, and consider re balancing fixed and variable pay.

In many cases, the employer’s cost of compliance will rise because contribution-bearing wages will effectively increase, even if the total CTC remains unchanged. Employees may initially perceive a reduction in take-home salary due to higher statutory deductions, but the long-term benefit accrual in PF and gratuity will be more robust. Transparent communication and change management will therefore be critical.

4. THE CODE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 2020

Consolidation and scheme architecture

The Code on Social Security, 2020 consolidates nine central labour Acts into a single statute. Those Acts are:

1.  The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923
2. The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948
3. The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
4. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959
5.  The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
6.  The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
7.  The Cine Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981
8. The Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996
9. The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008

The Code enables the Central Government to frame schemes for different classes of persons, with institutions such as the National Social Security Board advising on schemes for unorganised, gig and platform workers. The effectiveness of this architecture will ultimately depend on how schemes are designed and funded, and on the capacity of implementing agencies.

Gig and platform workers – registration and aggregator contributions

A path-breaking feature is the explicit recognition of “gig workers” and “platform workers”, who are often engaged as independent contractors and were largely outside traditional social security statutes. The Code contemplates mandatory registration of unorganised, gig and platform workers on a designated portal, typically using Aadhaar-based identity, as a precondition to claim benefits under the relevant schemes.

Aggregators—such as ride-hailing companies, food delivery platforms and similar digital intermediaries—are required to contribute a notified percentage of their annual turnover, within a statutory band, subject to an overall cap as a proportion of the amounts payable to such workers. These contributions, along with government funding and worker co contributions where prescribed, will form the corpus for benefits like accident insurance, health cover and old age support. From a tax and advisory perspective, this will influence pricing, margin structures and the design of platform contracts.

Aadhaar linkage and unorganised sector schemes

The Code provides for Aadhaar based identification in accessing benefits, and in practice Aadhaar linkage is expected to be embedded in registration and claim processes. This can reduce duplication and leakages but may pose inclusion challenges for workers lacking robust documentation or digital literacy, especially in remote areas.

For the unorganised sector more generally, the Code contemplates schemes on health, maternity, disability, old age and other contingencies, to be implemented through existing and new institutions. The key compliance question for employers will be the extent to which they are treated as “aggregators” or “principal employers” under different schemes and rules, especially in complex supply chains.

Gratuity and fixed term employment

The Social Security Code introduces important changes in gratuity eligibility for fixed term employees, aligning it with their actual period of service rather than the earlier five year continuous service requirement. Fixed term employees will be entitled to gratuity on a pro rata basis if they complete one year of service, improving benefit equity compared to permanent workers.

This interacts with the IR Code’s formal recognition of fixed term employment and will influence contract structuring, costing and actuarial valuations. Employers will need to review their gratuity funding policies and consider the volatility introduced by larger numbers of shorter tenure employees becoming eligible for gratuity.

5. THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020

Consolidation and recognition of trade unions

The Industrial Relations Code consolidates the Trade Unions Act, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and Industrial Disputes Act into a unified regime for trade union registration, standing orders and dispute resolution. One of its most significant changes is the formal recognition framework for negotiating unions.

Where a trade union has at least 51% of workers in an industrial establishment as members, it must be recognised as the sole negotiating union. If no union meets this threshold, a negotiating council is constituted comprising representatives of unions with at least 20% membership, ensuring that collective bargaining is channelled through a defined structure. This reduces multiplicity at the bargaining table but may intensify inter union competition to reach the 51% mark.

Thresholds for lay off, retrenchment and closure

The IR Code raises the threshold at which prior government permission is required for lay off, retrenchment and closure in certain industrial establishments from 100 to 300 workers. Establishments below this threshold may proceed without prior permission, subject to compliance with notice, compensation and other procedural safeguards.
The threshold for mandatory standing orders is also increased from 100 to 300 workers. These changes are aimed at providing mid sized enterprises and MSMEs with greater flexibility to respond to market conditions, but unions view them as weakening job security. In practice, states may exercise their power to further increase the threshold, leading to some jurisdictional variation.

Fixed term employment and unfair labour practices

The IR Code formally recognises fixed term employment, requiring that fixed term employees receive the same wages and benefits as permanent workers doing similar work, including eligibility for gratuity on a pro rata basis under the Social Security Code. This provides a lawful alternative to prolonged contractual arrangements with less clarity on rights and obligations.

The Code also consolidates and clarifies lists of unfair labour practices attributable to employers and workers, modernising the grounds for complaint and enforcement. This will be particularly relevant in adjudication and conciliation proceedings under the new regime.

Regulation of strikes and lock outs

A major change is the extension of the requirement of 14 days’ prior notice for strikes (and lock outs) from public utility services to all industrial establishments. Strikes and lock outs are also prohibited during conciliation proceedings and for prescribed cooling periods thereafter, and an expanded definition of “strike” can cover concerted mass casual leave above a set threshold.

From an employer’s standpoint, these provisions offer greater predictability and time to engage in negotiation or contingency planning. Unions argue that the combination of higher thresholds for retrenchment permissions and tighter strike conditions constrains collective bargaining leverage.

6. THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND WORKING CONDITIONS CODE, 2020 (OSH CODE, 2020)

Consolidation and applicability thresholds

The OSH Code consolidates 13 enactments relating to occupational safety, health and working conditions, including the Factories Act, Mines Act, Contract Labour Act and others. A key policy objective is to rationalise applicability thresholds, especially for smaller establishments, while maintaining safety oversight in higher-risk environments.

For factories, the threshold is raised to 20 workers where power is used and 40 workers where power is not used, compared with the earlier 10 and 20, respectively. For contract labour, the applicability threshold increases from 20 workers to 50 workers. These changes may relieve very small units from some regulatory burdens, but at the same time call for more robust self-regulation where statutory coverage does apply.

Single registration and duties of employers and workers

The OSH Code provides for single registration for an establishment, covering multiple activities which were previously subject to separate registrations. It also codifies duties of employers, employees and other persons, including obligations relating to safe premises, risk assessments, medical examinations, safety committees and reporting of accidents and dangerous occurrences.

Women are explicitly permitted to work in all establishments, including at night, subject to their consent and compliance with prescribed safety conditions and facilities. This aligns with broader gender equality policies but requires employers to plan carefully for transport, security and workplace design issues for night shift operations.

7. SELECTED COMPARATIVE TABLES

Old–new parameters

ILLUSTRATIVE OSH APPLICABILITY THRESHOLDS

8. IMPACT AND CRITICAL VIEWPOINTS

Employer and HR perspective

From an employer’s perspective, the Codes simultaneously offer simplification and introduce new cost and capability burdens. On the one hand, higher thresholds for lay off permissions and standing orders, common licensing and digital filings can materially improve ease of doing business, particularly for MSMEs and multi-location enterprises. On the other hand, the 50% wage rule, aggregator contributions for gig workers and expanded gratuity coverage will increase statutory outgo in many cases and demand significant changes to HR, payroll and compliance systems.

Administrative readiness is a further concern: employers will have to navigate overlapping regimes during transition, manage contractual amendments, and align internal policies with central and state rules that may not be perfectly harmonised at the outset. Early years of implementation can be expected to see interpretative disputes and litigation around definitions, thresholds and the interaction between central Codes and state rules.

WORKER AND UNION PERSPECTIVE

Trade unions have welcomed the promise of wider social security coverage but remain sceptical of higher thresholds for prior permission on retrenchment and closure, and of tighter strike notice and prohibition provisions. There is concern that flexibility on fixed term employment, coupled with reduced state control over closures in mid sized units, may encourage increased use of short term contracts and weaken job security.

For workers in the gig and unorganised sectors, the Codes create a statutory framework for social security where none existed earlier, but the real test will lie in the design and funding of schemes, ease of registration and claim processes, and the capacity of institutions to reach highly dispersed and mobile worker populations.

Administrative and system readiness

Regulators face their own readiness challenges: creating interoperable digital systems (such as upgraded Shram Suvidha type platforms), training inspector cum facilitators, issuing clear guidance circulars, and ensuring consistent interpretations across regions. The multilingual publication of rules and the development of user friendly interfaces for small employers and workers will be critical to genuine inclusiveness.

These factors, together with ongoing state level rule making, help explain why commencement has been calibrated and repeatedly deferred, and why a synchronised 1 April 2026 roll out is being projected as the current target.

9. CONCLUSION – READINESS ROADMAP FOR PROFESSIONALS

The four Labour Codes represent one of the most far reaching overhauls of India’s labour regulatory framework since independence, with the potential to simplify compliance, enhance formalisation and extend social security coverage. Whether this potential is realised will depend on the quality and timeliness of rule making, the robustness of digital infrastructure, and how employers, workers and regulators adapt in practice.

For professionals, the immediate action agendabefore the anticipated 1 April 2026 commencement includes:

• Conducting detailed impact assessments on CTC, PF and gratuity under the new wage definition.
•  Reviewing contract labour, outsourcing and fixed term employment strategies in light of new thresholds and licensing norms.
•  Upgrading HR, payroll and compliance systems for digital registers, returns and interaction with central and state portals.
•  Tracking state wise rule making and tailoring advice and internal policies to jurisdiction specific requirements.
• Training HR, IR and finance teams on the substantive changes, especially around gig worker contributions, recognition of unions and OSH thresholds.

If these steps are taken proactively, the transition to the new regime can be managed with reduced disruption, allowing businesses to focus on core operations while supporting a more formal, secure and transparent labour market over the next decade.

The Income Tax Act, 2025 (‘New Act’), attempts to simplify and consolidate the extensive TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) and TCS (Tax Collected at Source) provisions previously spread across 69 sections in the existing Income tax Act, 1961 (‘Old Act’). TDS provisions are now merged primarily into two sections in the New Act: Section 392 (TDS on salary) and Section 393 (TDS on all other payments), while TCS provisions are consolidated into Section 394.

The New Act achieves simplification primarily through tabulation, replacing the self-contained sections of the Old Act with tables that lists payment types, payer categories (e.g., ‘Specified Person’), rates, and thresholds. Key changes in the New Act include streamlining the definition of professional services to align advertising services with Section 393, resulting in a higher 10% TDS rate. The scope for obtaining a lower TDS deduction certificate has also been expanded to cover all payment types.

Furthermore, Section 392 of the New Act merges TDS on salary and EPF withdrawals, clarifying that EPF withdrawals exceeding ₹50,000 are subject to 10% TDS. Procedurally, the timing for TCS collection on motor vehicle sales exceeding ₹10 Lacs has been preponed to the time of debiting the buyer’s account or receipt, whichever is earlier.

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the TDS and TCS provisions are spread across 69 different sections under the Old Act. The new Income Tax Act, 2025 (‘New Act’) makes a fair attempt to consolidate the TDS provisions laid down across 69 sections into 2 sections i.e. section 392 of the New Act, which pertains to TDS on salary, and section 393 of the New Act, which covers TDS on all other types of payments. Further, TCS provisions are merged into 1 single section i.e. section 394 of the New Act. The new sections are now covered under Chapter XIX of the New Act, as against the erstwhile Chapter XVII of the Old Act.

SCHEME OF THE NEW ACT

Under the Old Act, each section was a self-contained code, which included definitions, exclusions, thresholds, etc. In contrast, the New Act has spread the provisions across various tables, and one needs to read the applicable section along with the relevant table and Serial Number in the said table, to determine the applicability and rate of TDS. It is to be noted that definitions for the purpose of Chapter XIX are contained in section 402, which is titled as “Interpretations” for the purposes of this chapter.
Across the sections relating to the TDS and TCS provisions, the language has been simplified and has been put up in a tabulated manner such that it is aligned with the structure of the New Act. Various sub sections to the main section, as provided under the Old Act, are provided in a simplified language in the New Act.

The scheme of the New Act is as follows.

• Section 393(1) deals with payments made to a Resident
• Section 393(2) deals with payments made to a Non-Resident
• Section 393(3) deals with payments made to any person (i.e. both Resident and Non-Resident)
• Section 393(4) deals with payments where no deduction of tax is required to be made

Each of the above 4 sub-sections includes a table distinctly listing the type of payment, the category of the payer and the applicable TDS rate with the threshold.

In terms of reading the New Act, sub section (1) or sub section (2) or sub section (3) needs to be read in conjunction with sub section (4) concurrently, so as to check whether the applicable provisions have any carve outs or not, including thresholds for
attracting TDS.

Similarly, section 394 of the New Act, which relates to TCS provisions, also includes a table which includes all sub sections of current section 206C.

There is one more table in section 395 dealing with declaration for nil / lower TDS. This covers the procedure for obtaining Nil / lower TDS in certain cases.

Requirements for filing 15CA/15B etc. as per section 195(6) of the Old Act are now expected to be prescribed under section 397(3)(d) of the New Act.

Succinctly, these sections as outlined in the New Act have largely simplified the language as provided in the Old Act, and have essentially tabulated the provisions by retaining the core concept with certain rewording being carried out at a few places.

Furthermore, Section 400 of the New Act has been introduced to empower the CBDT to issue guidelines for the removal of any difficulty in giving effect to the entire chapter of collection and recovery of tax. It is expected that such guidelines will need to be issued considering the changes made in the entire gamut of the TDS / TCS provisions, as one will now need to refer to Serial No of the Tables under the applicable sections, rather than the current practice of referring to the section (or sub section) itself. This will require changes in the entire manner of reporting in the TDS statements, returns, certificates and challans to be used for making the TDS payments. One also awaits the Rules to be notified, as these will contain substantial procedural changes.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

This article brings out the changes in the TDS provisions in the Old Act and the New Act

I)Section 392 of the New Act – Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee

Section 392 of the New Act merges the existing section 192 (TDS on salary) and 192A of the Old Act (TDS on EPF withdrawals). While the crux of both sections of the Old Act is retained, the New Act also clears the ambiguity by providing that payments made to employees on account of EPF withdrawals shall be subject to TDS @ 10% for payments made in excess of ₹50,000.

II) Section 393 of the New Act – Tax to be deducted at source on other payments

Before embarking to this section, it becomes essential to discuss the concept of a ‘Specified Person’ as the table provided in the section 393 and section 394 refers to the said term. The New Act distinctly categorizes the Payer as a ‘Specified Person’ and ‘Any other person’.

The term ‘Specified Person’ has been defined under section 402(37) of the New Act as follows:

A ‘Specified Person’ means:

(a) any person, not being an individual or Hindu undivided family; or

(b) an individual or a Hindu undivided family, whose total sales, gross receipts or turnover from the business or profession carried on by him exceed ₹1 crore in case of business or ₹50 lakh in case of profession during the tax year immediately preceding the tax year in which such income or sum is credited or paid.

In terms, it is bringing into effect the exclusions from the applicability of the chapter on a pari materia basis to the existing provisos to several sections under the Old Act, and is more of a redrafting for ease of reading, rather than any material change of law. This definition is relevant for determining the applicability of the several items listed in the tables, where TDS is to be applicable to payers who are individuals or Hindu Undivided Families.

While the term ‘Any other person’ has not been defined under the New Act, it would mean that Any Person would mean a person who is not a ‘Specified Person’.

III) Lower TDS deduction certificate – Scope expanded

The Old Act provided that certificate to obtain lower TDS rate was available only to payments in the nature of Salary, interest on securities, dividends and interest other than interest on securities.

Section 395 of the New Act has expanded its scope and accordingly, all types of payments are eligible for availing the benefit of obtaining a lower TDS deduction certificate.

While the draft Bill provided for certificate only for lower rate of TDS, the New Act provides for certificate for either nil or lower rate of TDS.

IV) TDS on commission and brokerage – Streamlining of definition to exclude services in the nature of ‘advertisement’

Section 194H of the Old Act provides for deduction of tax at source for payments made in the nature of commission and brokerage (other than payments made in the nature of professional services) @ 2%. The said section also provided for a definition of ‘professional services’ by way of an Explanation in the section, i.e. Explanation (ii). This definition did not include advertising services, and hence commission or brokerage relating to advertising services were covered by section 194H.

Besides, section 194J of the Old Act, which provides for payments in the nature of professional or technical services, this section also provides for a definition of ‘professional services’. The definition under this section, in Explanation (a) includes the profession of advertisement. As a result, professional services relating to advertisement were also sought to be covered by section 194J.

Section 393 read with section 402(28) of the New Act aligns this anomaly by streamlining the definition of professional services across both TDS sections, so as to mention that advertising services are professional services.

V) Sr. no. 9 – TDS on rent – Streamlining of definition

Currently under the Old Act, TDS to be deducted on Rent is spread across 4 sections i.e. Section 194 I (Rent), Section 194-IA (Payment on transfer of certain immovable property other than agricultural land), Section 194-IB (Payment of rent by certain individuals or Hindu undivided family) and Section 194-IC (Payment under specified agreement).

While section 194 I of the Old Act provided for a broader definition for payments made in relation to Rent, Section 194 IB of the Old Act restricted itself to only land or building or both. Section 393(1) read with section 402(29) of the New Act has streamlined the definition, with the change that now even rent for the use of factory buildings and land appurtenant to factory building are now included.

VI) Sr. No. 14 – Update on timing of collection of TCS exceeding ₹10 Lacs in case of motor vehicle

Section 206C(1F) of the Old Act required collection of tax source on the amount exceeding ₹10 Lacs at the time of receipt from the buyer of a motor vehicle. Section 394(1) of the New Act as amended has brought forward the timing for collection of tax at source by changing the timelines as follows:

– at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer or licensee or lessee to the account of the buyer or licensee or lessee; or
– at the time of receipt of such amount from the said buyer or licensee or lessee in cash or by way of a cheque or a draft or any other mode, whichever is earlier.

VII) Sr. No. 5 – Interest income

This entry in section 393(1) of the New Act has essentially clubbed 2 sections – Sections 193 and 194A of the Old Act.

Upon reading of section 393(1) with 393(4) of the New Act, it is worthwhile to note that while all exemptions available are still retained under the New Act when compared to the Old Act, the exemption previously available to ‘any co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a co-operative land mortgage bank)’ has been removed and accordingly if it crosses the threshold limits, then TDS ought to be deducted. This is on account of change in definition of banking company in section 402, which now does not include cooperative banks. consequently, the exemption in this aspect is now restricted to a banking company only.

VIII) TDS on certain amounts paid in cash

Section 194N of the Old Act provides for TDS higher rates of 2% / 5% with different thresholds for cash payments by banks, cooperative banks and post offices, depending on whether the recipient has or has not filed his income tax returns for the preceding three years. Under the New Act, Sl. No 5 of the Table below section 393(3) now does away with the need to verify if the tax returns of the recipient have been filed or not, and fixed the thresholds at ₹3 crore for cooperative banks, and ₹1 crore for others., i.e. banks and post offices.

CONCLUSION

The Old Act and New Act are substantially the same, except the few differences noted above. However, the users will need to get used to the new manner of the presentation of the law. Instead of the provisions relating to a particular type of deduction being available in one place earlier, now reference will need to be made to the section, the applicable table, the table for exclusions, and the definition section in the chapter. It is expected that the users will take time to comprehend the change, and will need to be careful while preparing challans, returns and the like while complying with the law. For the sake of an easy reference, an Annexure is appended to depict the corresponding provisions under both the laws.

Ready Referencer for sections applicable for TDS provisions under both Acts

A. CORE TDS SECTIONS (192 TO 196D)

B. TDS Compliance, Certificates, and Reporting

C. TCS (Old → New)

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Law, operationalised by the 2025 Rules, establishes a privacy-centric legislative framework for managing personal data, aligning India with global standards like GDPR and affirming privacy as a fundamental right. The regime is anchored by core principles like consent, data minimization, and accountability.

The law empowers the Data Protection Board (DPB) to enforce compliance, imposing heavy fines up to INR 250 crores for violations. Data Fiduciaries must obtain explicit consent, maintain data logs, designate a DPO (for Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs)), and perform Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs). Data Principals are granted rights to access, correct, and erase their data.

While distinct from cybersecurity (which protects all digital assets), DPDP focuses specifically on the lawful processing of personal data. Chartered Accountants (CAs) are positioned to play a vital strategic and advisory role by verifying DPDP controls, participating in DPIAs, assessing financial reporting liabilities, and guiding clients to use compliance as a strategic differentiator.

INTRODUCTION

The recent Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Law, enacted by the Indian government and operationalised with the DPDP Rules of 2025, marks a significant milestone in India’s digital economy and privacy landscape. India’s DPDP Act establishes clear legislative frameworks for processing, storing, and transferring personal data, aiming to balance innovation with robust privacy rights. Enacted after years of deliberation, the DPDP Act and its 2025 Rules represent India’s alignment with global data protection standards. CA as an individual in practice or firms collectively handle massive amounts of personal financial data of their client and hence they themselves are Data Fiduciaries. This article explores the law’s context, core principles, compliance obligations, comparison with Cyber Security, and the strategic, audit, and advisory functions CAs are now expected to discharge, as well as the implications for practising CAs.

EVOLUTION AND CONTEXT OF THE DPDP ACT

India’s move toward a unified data protection law was driven by rapid digital adoption, rising cybersecurity incidents, and the Supreme Court’s affirmation of privacy as a fundamental right. Enacted in 2023 and implemented in phases starting in 2025, the DPDP Act positions India closer to global standards, such as the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The Act and Rules reflect extensive stakeholder consultations and aim to promote trust, accountability, and cross-border data interoperability.

CORE PRINCIPLES AND STRUCTURE

The DPDP regime is anchored on principles of consent, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimization, accuracy, storage limitation, security safeguards, and accountability. The Data Protection Board (DPB) is empowered to oversee compliance, impose penalties, and issue operational guidance. Organisations must implement structured governance mechanisms, including impact assessments, audit trails, consent recording, and breach response controls.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE DPDP ACT

Data Principal Rights

•  entitled to obtain access to their personal data, request correction of inaccuracies, and seek erasure of such data in accordance with the Act.
•  designate a nominee to exercise their rights and manage their personal data in the event of their incapacity or death.
•  require organisations to provide clear information on how their personal data is processed and may request erasure where lawful and appropriate.

Duties of Data Fiduciaries

•  Obtain explicit, free, and informed consent from Data Principals before collecting or processing their personal data.
•  Provide easy opt-out mechanisms and ensure Data Principals can obtain access to their data upon request.
• Perform Data Protection Impact Assessments and regular audits as mandated for Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs), to evaluate and mitigate privacy risks.
• Designate a Data Protection Officer and maintain data logs for at least one year.
• Implement appropriate retention and data-flow controls for personal data, recognising that the Act does not mandate blanket localisation; assess and manage retention requirements for specific categories of data.
• Ensure that cross-border transfers are executed only in compliance with applicable law, targeted restrictions prescribed by the Government, and the conditions set out in the Rules.

Exemptions

•  Processing for research, statistical, or archival purposes provided such processing adheres to conditions that safeguard personal data and prevent misuse.
• Startups and specified government functions may be granted reduced or conditional compliance requirements, subject to notifications issued by the Government, to balance regulatory burden with operational needs.

Enforcement and Penalties

•  Non-compliance can attract heavy fines, up to INR 250 crores, depending on severity.
•  Repeated violations can result in blocking access to services.
•  Mandatory breach notifications to both individuals and the Data Protection Board (DPB).

CYBERSECURITY AND DPDP REGULATIONS

Cybersecurity and DPDP regulations share common objectives but also have distinct focuses and implications, especially for Chartered Accountants (CAs) in India.

Similarities Between Cybersecurity and DPDP Regulations

Differences Between Cybersecurity and DPDP Regulations

Chartered Accountants’ Obligations in DPDP Compliance

LIKELY SDFs IN INDIA: SECTORS / COMPANIES

Based on the criteria in the DPDP Act / Rules (volume of data, sensitivity, risk, technology use) and expert commentary, these are the sectors / companies that are most likely to be designated as Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) – 1) BFSI (Banks, Fintech, Non-bank Financial Institutions), 2) Hospitals, diagnostic labs, telemedicine platforms, 3) E-commerce / Retail Platforms, 4) Social media giants (Meta, Instagram, large content platforms), Internet Platforms, 5) Major telecommunications service providers, 6) Large IT / SaaS companies, 7) Government Contractors / Public-Private Entities, 8) Companies using AI / algorithmic profiling, biometric analytics, behavioral profiling etc.

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT’S IN PRACTICE – A DATA FIDUCIARIES

The DPDP Act makes CAs in Practice a Data Fiduciaries. CA handles significant personal data (financials, income, etc.), making them Data Fiduciaries responsible for its protection. Processing personal data requires specific, informed, free, unambiguous consent from their clients. Clients (Data Principals) have rights to access, correct, erase data, and appoint others to exercise these rights.

To comply with the requirements, the CAs in Practice require clear Privacy Notices & explicit Consent for client data.

CA has to take updated Engagement Letters which must covers all the details – what (data), why (purpose), how (it’s protected), rights (access/erase) and complaint links necessitating proactive updates for transparency, risk mitigation, and trust, especially for employee/children’s data.

The engagement letter should be expanded and formalised as a comprehensive data protection document, incorporating sections that address the following a) Acknowledging DPDP Act, CA’s role as Data Fiduciary, b) What specific personal data (financial, Aadhaar Card details etc.) is collected, c) Clearly state why (tax filing, audit, advisory) and limit it, d) How consent is obtained (affirmative action, e.g., signed letter) and that it’s specific to purpose, e) Steps taken to protect data (access controls, encryption), f) Inform clients of their right to access, correct, withdraw consent, etc., and how to exercise them, g) Specify process for clients to withdraw consent and data erasure timelines, h) If data shared with third parties (e.g., software vendors, bankers etc.), specify and get consent, i) How to lodge complaints (Link to DPB/Internal Mechanism), j) Specific clause for parental consent if applicable.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

•  New Compliance Practice Area: CAs can advise companies on DPDP compliance frameworks, audit data protection systems, and certify controls akin to financial audits. This is akin to how GST opened a new field for CAs.
•  Risk and Governance Advisory: mitigation strategies, and integrate privacy governance with financial and operational audits, helping organisations identify privacy risks, and recommend.
•  Training and Capacity Building: Delivering workshops on DPDP laws, data privacy culture, and cybersecurity basics for employees and management.
•  Assurance and Reporting: Conducting independent data protection audits, evaluating breach preparedness, and supporting statutory disclosures of data privacy risks.
•  Representation and Liaison: Representing clients in front of regulatory authorities like the Data Protection Board for compliance issues.
•  Cross-disciplinary Expertise: Gaining certifications in data privacy (e.g., CIPP, CIPM), cybersecurity (e.g., CISSP), or IT auditing (e.g., CISA) to strengthen advisory credibility.
•  Strategic Compliance: Turning Risk into Opportunity: CAs should guide companies to treat compliance not as a checkbox but a strategic differentiator, enabling trust and competitive advantage.

CHALLENGES AND EMERGING ISSUES

•  Phase-wise rollout with an 18-month transition period presents complexities for project planning and milestone tracking.
•  Balancing compliance, business agility, and cost—especially for MSMEs and startups.
•  Interpreting rules around algorithmic transparency and AI audits.
•  Navigating sectoral overlaps (financial regulations, IT Act, etc.).

IMPORTANT ASPECTS RELEVANT TO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Some important aspects of DPDP Act relevant to chartered accountants are explained below

1. Core Compliance Checklist (All Entities)

•  Maintain updated Privacy Policy, consent mechanism, and Record of Processing Activities.
•  Implement personal data lifecycle controls: collection → storage → retention → deletion.
•  Put in place procedures for access, correction, erasure, withdrawal and nomination requests.
•  Establish incident response and breach notification workflows.
•  Execute Data Processing Agreements with all vendors and maintain annual due-diligence records.
•  Retain security and system logs for the minimum period prescribed under the Rules.

2. Additional Requirements for Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs)

•  Appoint Data Protection Officer in India.
•  Undertake Data Protection Impact Assessments for high-risk processing.
•  Commission independent data audits annually.
•  Maintain board-level oversight on privacy, risk and incidents.

3. Key Areas for CA Engagement

•  Governance & Risk Advisory: data mapping, policy framework, DPIA facilitation, vendor risk.
•  Assurance: review of controls, log retention, breach readiness, and compliance documentation.
•  Financial Reporting: evaluate provisions or contingent liabilities for penalties under Ind AS/ AS; assess post-balance sheet events and impairment implications.
•  Contract Vetting: recommend clauses on purpose limitation, security safeguards, sub-processing and deletion.

4. The “Consent Manager” Framework – This is a new entity type in the fintech/financial ecosystem. CAs advising fintech clients need to understand this structure as it changes how financial data is shared

CONCLUSION

While cybersecurity focuses on protecting IT assets, including broader information systems from cyber attacks, DPDP regulations focus specifically on protecting individuals’ personal data privacy through lawful processing practices. Both require robust governance, risk management, and compliance mechanisms. Chartered Accountants have a significant opportunity to expand their role beyond traditional finance and audit into the emerging field of data privacy compliance and cybersecurity assurance. Achieving cross-disciplinary expertise through certifications and continuous education will position CAs as trusted advisors in India’s evolving digital privacy landscape. Chartered Accountants are pivotal in ensuring companies not only comply with the law but also strengthen governance, risk management, and public trust. Their multidisciplinary expertise will be vital as businesses transition to the new regulatory paradigm and leverage compliance for strategic growth. CAs in Practice should proactively revise the engagement letter to ensure compliance with the law and ensure robust consent management systems are in place before full enforcement.

The Income Tax Act 2025 was enacted following demands to modernize and simplify the bulky 1961 Act. Despite high expectations for structural change, the New Act is considered a disappointment because it makes very little change in substance. The stated objective was merely language simplification, which involved converting hundreds of explanations and provisos into sub-sections, and changing established terms like “notwithstanding” to “irrespective”. This linguistic revision creates an apprehension of increased litigation by disrupting settled judicial interpretation.

Procedurally, the New Act replaces the concept of “assessment year” with “tax year”. A critical transitional issue is that the Old Act (1961) will continue to apply to proceedings pending as of April 1, 2026, for previous tax years. This means taxpayers and practitioners must remain proficient in the provisions of both the 1961 and 2025 Acts for at least the next decade. Ultimately, stakeholders question whether the substantial effort was worthwhile given the minimal changes and the risk of new legal controversies.

BACKGROUND

The Income Tax Act 1961 has been around for more than six decades. The said Act had undergone innumerable changes, some on account of changes in the economic environment, some due to judicial interpretation being not in consonance with legislative intent, and some for other reasons. Consequently, the Act had indeed become bulky, and many new users found it to be cumbersome. The need for a new Income Tax legislation had been doing the rounds for more than a decade and a half. A direct tax code was put in the public domain in around 2010. Professionals spent huge amounts of time trying to analyse and dissect the provisions thereof and make representations to the government. For reasons best known to the lawmakers the direct tax code got a quick burial and is now lying only in the archives.

When a New Act was mooted, the profession and probably the taxpayer had great expectations. This was an era of massive technological development, all-round economic growth and the liberalisation of 1991, had resulted in a sea change in business environment. The government always mentioned its object of ushering in “ease of doing business.” It was hoped that the new legislation would make structural changes, conduct a complete overhaul of the cumbersome procedural issues and the New Income Tax Act, would be a forward-looking model legislation. Sadly, these expectations have not been met and to that extent the new legislation is a disappointment. The feeling is that a great opportunity has been lost.

The announcement of the new legislation was made in July 2024; the bill was tabled on 13th February 2025. referred to the Select Committee immediately thereafter. After the report of the Select Committee, which suggested a large number of changes, many of which were accepted by the Finance Ministry, the old bill was withdrawn on 8th August 2025. The redrafted legislation was placed before Parliament on 11th August 2025, passed by both houses on 11/12th August 2025 and received presidential assent on 21st August 2025. The Income Tax Act 2025 (hereafter referred to as the New Act), does not make any change in substance in the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Old Act). In its responses to the Select Committee, the Finance Ministry has made it abundantly clear that it does not intend to make any policy change and the objective was merely to ensure that the new law had language which the stakeholders could easily comprehend, was dynamic and forward-looking. Unfortunately, the objects do not seem to have been achieved. There is apprehension that, on account of the changes in language, there may be increase in litigation, unless the lawmakers take appropriate steps.

SCOPE OF THIS ARTICLE

As has been narrated in the earlier paragraphs, there is very little change in substance between the Old Act and the New Act. The tabulations comparing/ matching old sections with the new sections are already in the public domain, and in this era of complete information access, bear no repetition. Therefore the object is to point out the limited changes that have been made in the provisions relating to assessment and appeals, analyse the thought process of the Finance Ministry which has been recorded by way of responses to the suggestions of the Select Committee and put forth some suggestions wherever appropriate.

IMPACT OF CHANGE IN LANGUAGE

As an endeavour towards simplifying language, all the explanations in the Old Act {900 in number) and provisos (1200 in number) have been given a go by, and the text of the said explanations and provisos find place in the New Act by way of sub-sections. The role and ambit of explanations and provisos had been judicially interpreted for more than six decades and the law on that aspect was now well settled. Judicial fora were clear, that an explanation could not exceed the ambit of the main provision and a proviso was only an exception or carve out.

When an explanation or a proviso is enacted as an independent provision by way of a sub-section, it would stand on the same footing as the other sub-sections in the section. As a consequence, if the two sub-sections are in conflict with each other or there is an element of difference in interpretation, it would require judicial intervention to make a rational interpretation. The most significant difference in language is the use of the word “irrespective of” instead of the word “notwithstanding”. In my humble understanding, these two words do not mean the same thing. It is also important to note that the word “notwithstanding” was a non-obstantate clause, and if it appeared at two places, the impact was judicially interpreted. Using the word “irrespective of”, may result in interpretation issues. The Finance Ministry has clarified that the change in language is only to make it simple and not to disagree with established propositions. It may be appropriate for the Finance Ministry to clearly mention that despite the use of a different word, the intent is to accept the interpretation that was placed on the word “notwithstanding”.

REPEAL AND SAVINGS – SECTION 536

While section 536(2) of the New Act has clauses (a) to (s), clauses (c), (d), (e) and (g) are of importance for the scope of this article. Clauses (c), (d) and (e) provide that in respect of any proceeding pending as at the date of the commencement of the New Act, pertaining to tax year beginning before 1st April 2026, the provisions of the Old Act would continue to apply. This will mean that in regard to any proceeding which is pending as on 1st April 2026, in regard to assessment year 2026-27(previous year 2025-26), or any year prior thereto, the Old Act will apply. Further if any proceeding is initiated after 1st April 2026 pertaining to these years, the Old Act will continue to apply. This will mean that at least for the next decade or so, tax practitioners will have to keep abreast of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961, as well as the Income Tax Act 2025. Of course, this was the position also at the time that the Income Tax Act 1922, gave way to the Income Tax Act 1961. The difference is that the tax compliance landscape at that point of time was far simpler than it is today. Considering the current complexities, taxpayers, tax practitioners as well as tax administrators have a daunting task ahead.

The procedures, obligations limitations provided for/prescribed under the Old Act would continue for all years commencing on before 1st April 2026. Clause (g), provides that in regard to any refund pertaining to an year prior to the commencement of the New Act or any sum due by the assessee pertaining to that year, the provisions relating to interest either payable by the Central Government or by the assessee, the provisions of the New Act will apply for the period after the commencement of the act.

DEFINITIONS / CONCEPTS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT

The definitions pertaining to assessment, person, regular assessment, tax in the New Act are virtually identical to that of the Old Act. In the term “assessment”, the term recomputation has been included. This is only a semantic change as computation of tax was always a part of the assessment process.

In keeping with the change of replacing the concept of assessment year by a tax year, the New Act does not have a definition of assessment year, but a tax year is defined in section 3, in place of a previous year. Therefore 2026-27 will be the assessment year for previous year 2025-26 and tax year for financial year 2026-27.

The provisions of section 263 in regard to furnishing of a return of income, and section 267 pertaining to an updated return are similar to the corresponding provisions in the Old Act.

ASSESSMENT

The provisions in regard to inquiry before assessment are similar to that under the Old Act. Section 270(1) which deals with processing of a return of income corresponds to section 143(1) of the Old Act. Before the Select Committee, the stake holders had represented that after processing the return by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), which is a mechanical process now facilitated by artificial intelligence, the responsibility of grant of refund, rectification etc should vest with the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO). This would solve a large number of problems, which arise on account of the absence of a human interface. To illustrate, in the case of a developer following the percentage completion method, the withholding of tax by the flat purchaser, the determination of income results in a mismatch, requiring reconciliation. In situations like this, a human interface becomes inevitable.

The Finance Ministry response to the stakeholders suggestion was that the duties of the CPC and the JAO are properly delineated. According to the Ministry, the CPC processes returns according to Taxpayer’s Charter. It also transfers the rectification rights on request. The speed of such actions and the actual situation in the field is well known to taxpayers and tax practitioners.

Section 273 of the New Act corresponds to section 144B of the Old Act. However, there is a significant difference between the New Act and Old Act. Section 144B provided for the entire process of a faceless assessment. Despite the deletion of section 144B (9), which expressly provided that the non-adherence to the procedure would result in the assessment as non-est, statutory recognition of the process resulted in protection of the assesee’s rights. Section 273 delegates the duty of prescription to the CBDT. Before the Select Committee, the stakeholders urged that the assessment process should have statutory recognition. The Finance Ministry response was that even delegated legislation has parliamentary oversight, as the rules framed have to be placed before the Parliament. One wonders whether such oversight is sufficient protection for the taxpayer. The infringement of a statute would give different rights to an assessee. The same may not be true of a violation of a rule. While delegated legislation gives the administrators flexibility, one wonders whether the powers of prescription would be fairly used.

REASSESSMENT

Section 280 corresponds to section 148 of the Old Act by virtue of which a person is called upon to file a return, if, in the opinion of the department, income has escaped assessment. Sub section (5) of the section dispenses with the requirement of an opportunity in terms of section 281 in certain circumstances. The circumstances have been expanded to include , in terms of Section 280(6)(g) and (h) two situations, namely the issue of any direction by an approving panel in respect of an impermissible avoidance agreement, and any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority tribunal or court in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference revision, or by a court in any proceeding under any other the law. If these circumstances exist, no opportunity mandated by section 281, is necessary before issue of notice under section 280.

Before the Select Committee, the stake holders had requested that an opportunity be provided to an assessee, in terms of section 281 even if such circumstances exist. The Finance Ministry response was that, since the finding or direction was by a higher authority, it was bound to follow it and in any event an opportunity was already afforded by the authority before it recorded a finding or issued a direction. This could have significant repercussions for two reasons. Firstly, the term “authority” has not been defined in the New Act, though an income tax authority has been defined. So, the scope of the exclusion from a prior enquiry would stand substantially expanded, Secondly the finding or direction by a court under any other law, could put an assessee to substantial inconvenience. This is because each law has a different and distinct ambit. To illustrate, in a proceeding under say the PMLA or Prevention of Corruption Act, the court may record a finding. If the reopening is based on such a finding, it could have repercussions. Another example would be the statement of parties in matrimonial dispute before a family court. In such cases, statements are made in a particular context. If the court records a finding in regard to such statements, it could cause problem to assessees.

Section 282 sets out the time limit within which notice under section 280 can be issued. At first blush, one feels that the time limit has been increased from three years to four years and from five years to six years in certain circumstances, This is however not so. Section 149 of the Old Act prescribed limits with reference to an assessment year while the New Act prescribes time limits with reference to a tax year. The actual timelines therefore remain unchanged.
Section 286, corresponding to section 153 of the Old Act, sets out the time limits within which assessments, reassessments and recomputations are to be completed. Unlike section 153, which uses the term “month”, section 286 uses the word “year”. The reason for such change is not understood. Since both these terms are not defined in either the Old Act or the New Act the definition under the General Clauses Act will apply

APPEALS AND REVISION

The appeal and revision provisions remain substantially unchanged, though there are minor differences in language. Interestingly in regard to the revisionary powers of the Commissioner under section 378, the stakeholders had requested that the intimation under section 270(1) be treated as an order for the purpose of revision. This was earlier provided in section 264 in the Old Act, but after the deletion of the explanation, conflicting views had arisen. While declining to make a change in regard to the revisionary powers of the Commissioner, the Finance Ministry has explicitly stated that there is “no bar to a Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction in regard to an intimation under section 270(1). This would be clarified by way of administrative instructions.“ Thus, at least one controversy as to whether an assessee can invoke a Commissioner’s revisionary jurisdiction in regard to an intimation appears to have been settled.

CONCLUSION

If, simplification of language and reduction in volume were the only objects of the New Act, and the government was not desirous of making any structural or policy change, one wonders whether the huge effort and cost was worth it, A major part of the objects could have been achieved by a Taxation Laws Amendment Act. It will be only in mid-2027 that the provisions which are the subject matter of this article will be put to use. Even with the restriction that no policy change is to be made, it would be appropriate to make some changes in the Income Tax Act 2025. Probably the Government is conscious of this. It is borne out by the answer by the Minister of State for Finance in reply to a question in Parliament, which mentions that the forms to be used with effect from 1st April 2026, will be notified only after the Finance Bill 2026 is passed as the said bill may make certain changes to the New Act. One hopes that the lacunae which have already come to the fore are taken care of, so that litigation pertaining to the New Act can be avoided to the extent it can!