TDS: tax collected before the money reaches you

A deduction is a credit, not a tax

Tax deducted at source is not a separate tax. It is your ordinary income-tax bill, collected early by whoever is paying you. Whatever is withheld is credited against what you finally owe, so the return refunds the excess or asks for the balance.

That one sentence settles most of the confusion around TDS, so it is worth being precise about what it means. When a bank withholds tax on your interest, no money has been taken from you in any final sense. It has been moved — out of the payment you were expecting and into the government's account, tagged with your permanent account number, your PAN. At filing, that tagged amount is subtracted from the tax computed on your whole year. It is a part-payment made early.

Which means the two things people fear about TDS are the same thing seen from opposite sides. Deducted too much? The excess comes back as a refund. Deducted too little, or not at all? The balance is still yours and it is waiting at filing. Neither outcome is a penalty. Both are the arithmetic of a part-payment that did not happen to equal the bill.

The reason a part-payment rarely equals the bill is structural rather than administrative. A deductor sees one payment and a PAN. It cannot see your other income, your regime, your deductions, the loss you carried forward or the gain you booked in July. So it applies a rate the Act fixes for that kind of payment and deposits it. The rate attaches to the payment; the tax attaches to the person. Those are different objects, and only one of them can be computed by a stranger.

How the liability itself is built — heads of income, regime, rebate, cess, in the order they actually apply — is set out in income tax, in the order it is computed. This page is about the money that reaches the government before any of that happens.

Where it lands in an ordinary year

Four deductions cover most households. They differ in who is doing the arithmetic and how much that person can see, and the difference predicts which direction each one gets wrong in.

Salary is the one genuine exception in that table, and it is why most salaried people have never had to think about any of this. An employer is the only deductor asked to estimate a person's tax rather than a payment's: it takes a declaration of your intended deductions, applies the regime you tell it, and spreads the estimated annual tax across twelve months. Done on a complete declaration it lands close. Done on one that ignored your freelance invoices and your fund redemptions, it lands close to the wrong number.

Two things about that declaration are worth separating. The regime it applies is the s.202 default unless you say otherwise, and the deductions being declared — s.123 with its ₹1.5 lakh cap, the health-insurance deduction under s.126, the house rent allowance exemption — belong to the old regime alone. Declare them without having opted out and they change nothing. The comparison is in the old regime against the new, and the rent exemption specifically in how HRA is actually computed.

The professional-fees row repays a second look, because the mismatch there is not a rounding error. Your client deducts on the gross invoice. Your liability is computed on that invoice minus the costs of earning it. The two figures are calculated on different bases, so they agree only by coincidence — and for anyone with real business expenses, the deduction is routinely larger than the tax it is meant to approximate.

Thresholds are drawn per payer; tax is charged per person

Here is the design choice that catches people out, and it is not an oversight. A deduction threshold is a rule addressed to the payer — it tells one organisation when it need not bother withholding on what it pays you. Your tax liability is a rule addressed to you, computed on everything you received from everyone. Those two rules use different denominators.

Work it through with rent, where the obligation is drawn about as precisely as these rules ever are. A tenant who is an individual or a Hindu undivided family and is not subject to tax audit must deduct 2% where monthly rent exceeds ₹50,000, tested month by month — Income-tax Act 2025 s.393, the provision that carried over from s.194-IB of the repealed 1961 Act.

Now two landlords. The first lets one flat to one tenant at ₹55,000 a month: above the line, so the tenant withholds every month and the deduction appears against their PAN. The second lets two flats to two tenants at ₹45,000 each. That is ₹90,000 a month of rent — more income, and nothing withheld, because neither tenant crosses the threshold on what it individually pays. Two tenants, two separate tests, two nils.

Notice what has and has not happened. The second landlord's tax bill is larger than the first's. The amount collected from them during the year is zero. Nothing has been avoided and nothing has been saved — the tax on ₹90,000 a month of rent is due exactly as before, and now the whole of it has to arrive some other way. The threshold was never an exemption. It was an administrative convenience for a tenant, and it was read as a statement about the landlord.

The same shape recurs wherever a threshold exists. Deposits spread across several banks are each tested by the bank holding them, so each can sit below the line while the total sits well above it. That is the same arithmetic that makes deposit insurance work per depositor per bank — the identical splitting that buys cover also suppresses withholding, and only one of those two effects is in the saver's favour. One qualification: a bank counts its own branches together, so moving money between branches of one bank does nothing.

Which leaves a practical consequence rather than a piece of trivia. The less TDS a household has, the more of its tax has to be paid by the household itself, at dates it has to know about. That machinery — the instalment checkpoints and what being late costs — is in advance tax and TDS. A year with no deductions is not a quiet year. It is a year in which nobody else is keeping the score.

Stopping a deduction that should not happen

Suppose the deduction is not merely imprecise but plainly wrong — a retired person living on deposit interest, with a total income below the point at which any tax is payable at all. Nothing about that person's circumstances is visible to the bank. Left alone, the bank withholds, and the money comes back only after a return is filed and processed, perhaps a year later.

So the law provides a way to say so in advance. The payee gives the payer a declaration that their estimated total income for the year is below the taxable limit, and on the strength of it the payer does not deduct. These are the forms long known as Form 15G and Form 15H — 15H for senior citizens, 15G for everyone else eligible — though the names are worth confirming for the year you are in. Where a deduction would over-collect without being wholly unnecessary, a separate route exists to ask the department to authorise a lower rate.

Two properties of the declaration decide whether it helps or hurts.

• Given to each payer. The declaration is a statement to one organisation about your whole year. Four banks means four declarations, and each bank acts on yours without knowing the other three exist. The document that stops the withholding is per payer; the income it certifies is not.
• A conclusion, not a fact. The payer cannot check it and is not asked to. You are asserting that your total income for a year that has not finished will stay below a line. If it does not, the declaration was wrong when you signed it, and a false declaration is treated as a serious matter rather than an estimating error.

That second property is where a specific and expensive mistake lives. The default regime carries a rebate of up to ₹60,000 where total income does not exceed ₹12 lakh, which is why a great many people correctly believe they owe nothing. But s.156(3) is explicit that the rebate cannot shelter special-rate income — s.198 long-term capital gains among it. So a modest earner who redeems equity units in January can be genuinely below the rebate line on their salary and interest, and still owe real tax on the gain. If they filed a declaration in April on the strength of the rebate, nothing was withheld all year and the belief that produced the declaration was wrong by construction. Rates for those gains are 20% under s.196 and 12.5% above ₹1.25 lakh under s.198; the full treatment is in capital gains tax explained.

The trade-off, stated plainly. Filing the declaration keeps your money with you through the year instead of lending it to the government interest-free. What it costs is that the whole reconciliation now depends on an estimate you made in April, and there is no longer a deduction quietly covering you if the estimate was optimistic.

Deducted and credited are two different events

This is the commonest filing problem in India, and almost nobody sees it coming, because the language hides it. We say tax "was deducted" as though that were one event. It is two, performed by the same party at different times, and only the second one produces anything you can use.

First the payer withholds the money and deposits it. Then, separately and later, the payer files a statement telling the department whose PAN that money belongs to. Your credit is built from the statement, not the withholding. Break the second step and the first step becomes invisible: the money is with the government, correctly, and there is no record that it is yours.

Three ways it breaks, all of them ordinary:

• The PAN is wrong. A digit mistyped when the account was opened, or a PAN never given at all. The deposit lands against somebody else or against nobody.
• The statement never arrives. Deduction happened, reporting did not. Common with small deductors and with a client who withheld on your invoice and then stopped being organised.
• The year is wrong. An invoice paid in April reported into the previous year, or a deposit's interest reported into the wrong one. The credit exists; it is sitting in a year that does not match your income.

Which produces a rule worth carrying, because the instinct it corrects is very strong. The credit statement long known as Form 26AS, and the annual information statement, are the department's record of what it believes it holds for you. Your payslip is not. If they disagree, entering the payslip figure in your return does not create a credit — it creates a return that does not match the department's records, which is how a demand notice starts. The correction is made upstream, with the deductor, by getting the statement revised. A certificate of deduction is evidence against the deductor; it is not, by itself, a credit.

One nuance in the other direction: a nil entry against a payer is sometimes correct rather than missing. A tenant below the monthly threshold has no duty to deduct, and interest on an exempt account such as a Public Provident Fund attracts nothing. Absence of a credit is a question to ask, not a fault to assume.

Over-deducted comes back; under-deducted waits

Both errors resolve at filing, and it is worth seeing what each one costs, because they are not symmetrical and neither is free.

Over-deduction is recovered as a refund when the return is processed. The tax was never owed, so all of it comes back. What is not recovered automatically is the use of the money for the months it sat there — whether anything is paid to you for that period is a separate question worth checking for your year. A large refund is not a windfall and it is not evidence of good planning. It is a measurement of how much you lent, without deciding to.

Under-deduction leaves a balance. The tax was always owed; the only thing that changed is that nobody collected it on the way. Pay it and the matter is settled — except for one thing that is easy to miss. Because the year's liability was supposed to be met as income arose, a large uncollected balance can also carry interest for the period it was outstanding, measured from dates inside the financial year rather than from the filing date. That clock, and the decisions it changes, are set out separately.

There is also a case that is neither, and it catches salaried people who change their minds. Your employer deducts on the regime you declared in April. Your liability is computed on the regime you actually adopt in the return. If those differ, the return produces a refund or a balance without anyone having made a mistake — the deduction followed the declaration and the tax followed the law, and they were never required to agree.

Five errors, each traceable to one mechanism above

1. Treating TDS as settled tax. "Tax was already deducted" describes a part-payment computed by someone holding one line of your information. The reconciliation was always yours.
2. A threshold read as exemption. Nothing withheld means nothing withheld. The income is taxable exactly as it was, and now the whole liability has to arrive by some other route.
3. Splitting deposits to suppress TDS. Spreading money across banks may serve a purpose, but suppressing deductions is not one of them. It moves the collection, not the tax.
4. A declaration on stale facts. A declaration made in April describes a year that has not happened, and a redemption in January can falsify it. The rebate that made the belief reasonable does not cover the gain.
5. Overriding a mismatch at filing. Typing the payslip figure over the credit statement does not create a credit. It creates a disagreement with the department's own records.

Four of the five share a single root, and naming it is most of the cure: the belief that somebody else reconciles. For a salaried person with one employer and no other income, roughly true. For a household with a deposit ladder, a let flat, some freelance invoices and a fund redemption, nobody is doing it — and each of those four payers is confident that their own small part was handled correctly, because it was.

Most of this is a records problem

Almost nothing above needs judgement. It needs facts — what was paid to you, by whom, and what already reached the government against your PAN. The one fact a household reconstructs worst from memory is what a holding cost on the day it was bought, and that is the figure a gain computation cannot be done without.

The holding-period line at 12 months decides whether s.196 or s.198 applies to a fund sale, and it turns on acquisition dates that no deductor holds. FNOTrader's Mutual Funds app runs on the full published history of daily per-unit scheme values from AMFI — the net asset value, or NAV — around 34 million rows of it, and reports invested amount against value for any scheme and period alongside the return on cashflows landing on irregular dates, which is XIRR. It computes nobody's tax. What it holds is the dated, priced record that a gain computation starts from.

Nothing here is tax advice, and FNOTrader is not a chartered accountant, a tax practitioner or a SEBI-registered investment adviser. Rates, thresholds and form names change; the shape of the rule is what is worth carrying between years.

Common questions

Continue reading

More in Tax Planning · App: Mutual Funds · Definitions: glossary · Free tools: calculators · All: every article