Issuu

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax? Taxmann Advisory and Research Team

Contents 1.

Background

Who is involved in a UPI payment?

How the 0.4% MDR is divided

4. GST on the MDR: The Basics

The Key Question: GST on the Full MDR or Only a Part?

Lessons from the Service Tax Era

Position under GST

Two Possible Ways

A Similar Issue CBIC has already addressed

10. What still needs clarity

11. The Road Ahead

12. Income Tax Implications

13. Conclusion

Background

From October 15, 2026, UPI payments will no longer be entirely free for merchants. The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) has introduced a Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) of 0.4% on specified Person-to-Merchant (P2M) UPI transactions above Rs. 2,000. For transactions of Rs. 75,000 and above, the MDR is capped at Rs. 300 per transaction. However, small merchants in the prescribed P2M category that receive up to Rs. 1 lakh per month through UPI QR will remain eligible for zero MDR. This change raises some immediate questions: •

Will GST be charged on the MDR?

•

How will GST apply to the portion of the fee shared among the different UPI players?

•

Who will issue the GST invoice to the merchant, and how much input tax credit can the merchant claim?

•

Will tax need to be deducted at source from the payment?

•

Can the MDR be claimed as a business expense?

This article explains these questions in simple terms.

2. Who is involved in a UPI payment? Several parties are involved in every UPI payment to a merchant: Party

Role

Customer (payer)

Makes the UPI payment. Does not pay the MDR.

Merchant (payee)

Receives the payment and bears the MDR. Cannot charge the MDR to the customer separately.

Issuing bank

The customer’s bank.

Acquiring bank

The merchant’s bank (or payment partner) that settles the payment.

UPI app (TPAP)

The third-party app the customer uses to pay, such as Google Pay or PhonePe.

Sponsor bank/PSP

The bank through which the UPI app operates on the UPI network.

NPCI

Runs the UPI system and sets its rules. It is not one of the parties that share the MDR.

3. How the 0.4% MDR is divided Before discussing the tax implications, it is necessary to understand how the MDR is distributed within the UPI ecosystem. The 0.4% fee does not go to one party. The merchant deals only with the acquiring bank, and only the acquiring bank bills the merchant for the MDR. The acquiring bank then

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

passes part of the fee to the issuing bank. This share is called the “interchange fee”. The issuing bank, in turn, passes part of its share to the sponsor bank/PSP, which pays the UPI app. Under the MDR framework, the standard split of the fees collected by the acquiring bank is as follows: Party

Who they are

Issuing bank

40%

The customer’s bank, which approves the payment

Acquiring bank

30%

The merchant’s bank, which receives the payment

UPI app (TPAP)

20%

The payment app (Google Pay, PhonePe, etc.)

Sponsor bank/PSP

10%

The bank that supports the app’s operations

These percentages show what each party ultimately keeps. A worked example Mr A pays Rs. 10,000 to Mr X, a merchant. An MDR of 0.4% (Rs. 40) is deducted, so Mr X receives Rs. 9,960. Note: To keep the numbers simple, GST on the MDR is ignored in this example. The Rs. 40 moves through the system in four steps: Step

Paid by (Party 1)

Paid to (Party 2)

Amount paid by Amount retained Party 1 to Pary 2 by Party 1

Merchant (through deduction)

Acquiring bank

Rs. 40

Acquiring bank

Issuing bank

Rs. 28

Issuing bank

Sponsor bank / PSP

Rs. 12

Sponsor bank / PSP

UPI app

Rs. 8

Let’s see how this plays out across different transaction amounts. These scenarios will clarify how the cap and distribution work. Transactions (A)

Rs. 5,000

Rs. 10,000

Rs. 50,000

Rs. 1,00,000

MDR @ 0.4% (B)

Rs. 20

Rs. 40

Rs. 200

Rs. 300

Issuing Bank (40%)

Rs. 8

Rs. 16

Rs. 80

Rs. 120

Acquiring Bank (30%)

Rs. 6

Rs. 12

Rs. 60

Rs. 90

UPI App Provider (20%)

Rs. 4

Rs. 8

Rs. 40

Rs. 60

Sponsor Bank (10%)

Rs. 2

Rs. 4

Rs. 20

Rs. 30

Rs. 4,980

Rs. 9,960

Rs. 49,800

Rs. 99,700

Merchant Receives (A-B)

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

4. GST on the MDR: The Basics Current indications are that GST at 18% will apply to the MDR, treated as a financial service under SAC 9971. GST will be charged only on the fee, not on the payment amount itself. A GST-registered merchant can claim input tax credit (ITC) on this GST, subject to the conditions in Section 16 of the CGST Act.

5. The Key Question: GST on the Full MDR or Only a Part? The harder question is the amount on which GST should be charged. As we have seen, the MDR paid by the merchant is shared among the acquiring bank, the issuing bank, the sponsor bank/PSP and the UPI app. Using our example, the difference is clear: •

GST at 18% on the full Rs. 40 MDR = Rs. 7.20

•

GST at 18% on only the acquiring bank’s Rs. 12 share = Rs. 2.16

Which answer is correct depends on how the arrangement is viewed: as one combined service provided to the merchant, or as a set of separate services between the different parties. This decides the GST liability.

6. Lessons from the Service Tax Era The tax treatment of interchange fees is not a new issue. Under the old Service Tax law, the Supreme Court examined this question for credit-card payments. In Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. Citibank N.A., 24 Centax 164, the Supreme Court considered whether interchange fee received by the issuing bank could be subjected to service tax separately where the acquiring bank had already discharged service tax on the entire Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). The Court looked at section 65(33a) of the Finance Act, 1994. This section specifically covered “credit card, debit card, charge card or other payment card services”. It included services provided by any person, including an issuing bank and an acquiring bank, for settling amounts paid through such cards. In other words, the old law had a dedicated provision for card-payment services and expressly recognised the roles of both banks. Based on this provision, the Court held that the MDR charged by the acquiring bank was payment for a single combined service. That single fee covered the acquiring bank’s fee, the issuing bank’s interchange fee and the platform fee. Since service tax had already been paid on the full MDR when it was first collected, taxing the interchange fee again would mean taxing the same service twice. The same principle was subsequently followed by the CESTAT, Mumbai, in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, 45 Centax 338, in relation to interchange fees received by HDFC Bank as an issuing bank. Following the Supreme Court’s decision

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

in Citibank N.A., the Tribunal held that service tax was not separately payable on the interchange fee where service tax had already been discharged on the entire MDR.

7. Position under GST The decision in Citibank N.A. provides an important reference point, but its conclusion cannot be mechanically transplanted into the GST regime. The Citibank ruling interpreted a provision of the Finance Act, 1994. It will bind a GST provision only if the two are in pari materia, meaning their wording, scheme and purpose are essentially the same. That is not the case here, for several reasons: •

GST and Service Tax are separate laws with different structures.

•

The taxable event has changed from “provision of a service” under Service Tax to “supply of goods or services or both” under GST.

•

The two taxes rest on different constitutional foundations.

•

GST is a much broader tax that replaced many older taxes, including Service Tax.

Most importantly, GST has no provision like section 65(33a), which specifically defined cardpayment services and named the issuing and acquiring banks. Under GST, the starting point is the broad concept of “supply” in section 7 of the CGST Act. So, each transaction must be examined afresh: what is being supplied, by whom, to whom, and for what payment. In short, the Citibank reasoning on the economic nature of interchange fees, and on the idea of one combined payment service, may offer helpful guidance. But the final answer under GST must come from applying GST law on its own terms. This matters for UPI, because the MDR collected from the merchant is shared among several parties. There are two ways to look at it.

8. Two Possible Ways Option 1: The Full MDR Is Payment for One Combined Service Suppose the acquiring bank collects the full MDR from the merchant and later shares it with the issuing bank and the other parties. Should GST be paid separately on the shares it passes on? If the Citibank approach were applied under GST, no separate GST would be charged on these shares, because the full MDR would already have been taxed. But this leads to further questions: •

Would the amounts received by the issuing bank, sponsor bank/PSP and UPI app count as a “supply” at all?

•

If they are treated as exempt supplies, would these parties have to reverse ITC under section 17 of the CGST Act and the related rules?

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

•

If they are treated as a simple pass-through, and not a supply, would no ITC reversal be needed?

There is also a conflicting view. The CBIC FAQ on the Financial Sector, dated 27-12-2018, says that card-settlement fees are payment for a separate business-to-business (B2B) transaction between the participating banks. Such fees are taxable under GST, and ITC is available on them. However, an FAQ is only administrative guidance. It does not carry the legal force of the law or a court ruling. These differing views leave open how the interchange portion of the UPI MDR should be treated. Option 2: Each Party Provides a Separate Service Alternatively, the acquiring bank might bill the merchant only for its own share of the MDR, while the other parties’ shares are settled separately, for example by netting or adjustment. This also raises questions: •

Would the issuing bank, sponsor bank/PSP and UPI app each need to issue their own invoices for their shares?

•

Is there any direct contract between the merchant and these parties, given that the merchant bears the MDR?

•

If there is no such direct relationship, who should issue the invoice, and to whom is each service actually supplied?

The answer will shape the ITC chain. It will decide whether the merchant can claim ITC on GST on the full MDR through a single invoice from the acquiring bank, or only on invoices issued by each party for its own share.

9. A Similar Issue CBIC has already addressed This issue is not entirely new. CBIC Circular No. 228/22/2024-GST, dated 15-07-2024, dealt with the GST treatment of government incentives under the scheme to promote RuPay debit cards and low-value BHIM-UPI payments (up to Rs. 2,000). Under that scheme, the acquiring bank shared the incentive with issuing banks, payer PSPs and UPI apps in the proportion decided by NPCI. The Circular clarified that this sharing is in the nature of a “subsidy” and is therefore not taxable under GST. However, that incentive arrangement is different from the new MDR, which is a fee paid by merchants. So, the Circular does not, by itself, settle how the MDR and interchange fees should be taxed or invoiced.

10. What still needs clarity A specific clarification from CBIC or the GST Council is needed on four connected points: 1.

Is the MDR arrangement one combined service, or a set of separate supplies?

Who must issue the tax invoice to the merchant?

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

Is GST payable on the full MDR, or only on the acquiring bank’s share?

How much ITC can the merchant claim, and how will ITC work for the other parties?

11. The Road Ahead The GST Council’s next meeting is scheduled for 7 October 2026. Reports suggest the issue is not on the agenda, although the Council could still take it up. Since the MDR takes effect on 15 October 2026, banks, UPI apps and merchants may have to start operating under the new system before any clarification arrives.

12. Income Tax Implications Will tax need to be deducted from this payment? Income-tax Act 2025 (ITA) requires the deduction of tax at source (TDS) from certain payments, including “commission or brokerage.” Under Section 393(1) [Table S. No. 1(ii)] of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 194H of the ITA 1961), ‘commission or brokerage’ includes any payment, whether received or receivable, directly or indirectly, by a person acting on behalf of another for services rendered in the course of buying or selling goods or in relation to any transaction involving any asset. In practice, the merchant’s only direct counterparty is the acquiring bank, because the MDR is collected at the single point of settlement before the sale proceeds are credited. However, whether that arrangement by itself settles the TDS question is not clear from the provision alone. It depends on how courts have characterised similar bank charges. This question has been asked before, in slightly different forms. When credit card processing became common in India, merchants and banks faced the same confusion. Is the fee a bank charges for processing a credit card transaction a “commission”? The Delhi High Court, in CIT v. JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 139 (Delhi), considered this question. The case involved a bank that retained charges for processing credit card transactions. The court held that the bank was not acting as a commission agent for the merchant. Instead, the bank provided banking services by processing transactions securely, maintaining the payment infrastructure, and settling funds. Hence, the commission paid to a bank on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards is not liable to TDS. This is a principal-to-principal relationship, not an agency relationship. The court held that the charge is a fee for banking services, not a commission. The same court applied this reasoning to digital payment gateways in another case, PCIT v. Make My Trip India (P.) Ltd. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi). Once again, the court held that charges paid to payment gateways were fees for services, not commissions. Further, in CIT v. Corporation Bank [2021] 123 taxmann.com 204 (Karnataka), the High Court held that inter-bank service charges for routing transactions through networks are not commission and are not liable to TDS.

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

These decisions support the distinction between a principal-agent relationship, where commission provisions may apply, and a principal-to-principal service arrangement, where the payment constitutes consideration for banking or payment-processing services. The CBDT also issued Notification No. 47/2016, dated 17-06-2016, which exempts certain specified payments from TDS altogether, including bank guarantee commission, cash management charges, credit/debit card commission for transactions between a merchant and an acquirer bank, and interchange fee, irrespective of how such payments might otherwise be characterised. The exemption applies where the payee is either a scheduled bank listed in the Second Schedule to the RBI Act, 1934 (excluding a foreign bank) or a payment-systems company authorised by RBI under Section 4(2) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The latter is a closer fit for sponsor banks and PSPs operating within the UPI framework. The notification predates UPI and doesn’t mention it. However, its references to ‘interchange fee... under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007’ and to ‘merchant establishment and acquirer bank’ describe a settlement structure identical to UPI’s, so the same exemption may apply for the same reasons. Accordingly, where the merchant’s MDR is deducted or paid to an eligible acquiring bank and the underlying arrangement is on a principal-to-principal basis, the combined effect of Notification No. 47/2016 and the judicial reasoning in credit-card MDR cases provides a strong basis for non-deduction of TDS. The downstream splits to the issuing bank, PSP/sponsor bank, and TPAP constitute interinstitutional settlements to which the merchant is not a party. As the Karnataka High Court (supra) held, inter-bank service charges for routing transactions through networks are not commission and are not liable to TDS. However, a separate question arises as to whether the PSP/sponsor bank should deduct TDS when it pays the non-bank TPAP/UPI App its 20% share. Since a non-bank TPAP would not itself fall within the bank-specific exemption in Notification No. 47/2016, the contractual relationship between the PSP/sponsor bank and the TPAP becomes important. In One Mobikwik Systems Ltd. v. JCIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 1204 (Delhi – Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that no TDS under Section 194H applies to payment gateway charges paid to non-bank payment gateways, thereby extending the JDS Apparels/Make My Trip principle beyond banks. The Tribunal’s reasoning turned on the absence of a principal-agent relationship. The payment gateway agreements showed an independent-contractor, principal-to-principal arrangement, with the gateways entitled to deduct their own fees before remittance. Mobikwik (supra) suggests that even a non-bank TPAP may escape TDS on principal-toprincipal reasoning, irrespective of the bank-specific notification. However, this would need to be tested against the specific contractual terms between the PSP/sponsor bank and the TPAP. As discussed above, in light of the judicial rulings and Notification No. 47/2016, the MDR on UPI is not a commission but a banking service fee for the merchant’s own position; hence, the merchant is not required to deduct tax. Whether the PSP/sponsor bank’s payment

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

to the TPAP independently escapes TDS depends on the specific agency (or absence of agency) in that contract. TDS if the transaction involves a foreign bank While the general rule is ‘No TDS’. The position differs when the transaction involves a foreign bank. The exemptions do not apply, and TDS may be required under Section 393(2) [Table S. No. 17] of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 195 of the ITA 1961), as Notification No. 47/2016 specifically excludes foreign banks from the exemption. Under Section 393(2) [Table S. No. 17], tax must be deducted only if the sum is ‘chargeable under the provisions of this Act.’ If the payment does not contain an element of income taxable in India, the withholding obligation does not arise. The service of a standard banking facility may be classified as ‘Business Profits’ under the relevant DTAA. Business profits of a foreign enterprise are taxable in India only if it has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. If the foreign bank operates purely from abroad and processes the UPI transaction through digital infrastructure without a physical or agency PE in India, the MDR may not be taxable in India, subject to the significant economic presence provisions. Does MDR affect the calculation of turnover? A taxpayer must maintain books of account and have them audited as provided in Section 62 of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 44AA of the ITA 1961), and Section 63 of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 44AB of the ITA 1961). In general, for business, an assessee must get the books of account audited if total turnover during the tax year exceeds Rs. 1 crore. The Rs. 1 crore threshold shall be considered Rs. 10 crore if the business’s cash receipts or cash payments do not exceed 5% of total receipts and payments. Similarly, Section 58(2) [Table S. No. 1] of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 44AD of the ITA 1961) is a presumptive taxation scheme for small businesses. It applies to an Individual, HUF, or partnership firm (other than an LLP) engaged in any business. Under this scheme, eligible taxpayers may compute taxable income on a presumptive basis if the business turnover does not exceed Rs. 2 crores or Rs. 3 crores in the year. As per the ‘Guidance Note on Terms Used in Financial Statement’ issued by the ICAI, the term ‘sale turnover’ shall mean the aggregate amount for which sales are effected or services rendered by an enterprise. Thus, the MDR deducted by the bank from the sale amount will not reduce the turnover. The customer pays the full amount, and the MDR is an expense incurred after the sale to facilitate payment collection. It is a cost of the transaction infrastructure, not a reduction in the sale price. Treatment of GST while calculating turnover Section 277 of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 145A of the ITA 1961) provides for the inclusion of taxes, cess, etc., in the value of sales, purchases and inventory. However, the purpose of this provision is limited to the calculation of income taxable under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession’. Whether this provision can be applied to calculate ‘sales turnover’ for the purposes of Sections 62, 63, and 58 has long been a matter of disagreement between the revenue and the taxpayer.

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

In the case of an assessee who has opted for the Composition Scheme under the GST Act, the tax is not recoverable from the customer and is debited to the Statement of Profit & Loss as an indirect expense. Accordingly, the amount of GST paid by an assessee should not form part of his gross turnover. However, in the case of other assessees, as GST is charged to the customer and recognized separately in the books of account, it is not clear whether the amount of GST shall be included in the turnover for the purpose of calculation of taxable income only (as provided by Section 277) or for every other provision which has a reference to ‘turnover’. Unless the CBDT clarifies its stand on this matter, it would be appropriate to ignore the amount of GST while calculating the gross turnover or gross receipts for the following reasons: a.

Section 277 begins with ‘for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession’, thereby making this provision inapplicable for other purposes.

If GST recovered from the customer is credited to the Current Liability Accounts (Output CGST, Output IGST, or Output SGST) and payments to the authority are debited to the same separate account, such amounts should not form part of the turnover shown in the profit and loss account. ICAI’s Guidance Note on Tax Audit also confirms that tax recovered, when credited to a separate account, is not included in the turnover.

Including GST in the turnover would have a cascading effect, i.e., presumptive income shall also be computed on the GST component, which is never treated as the assessee’s income.

Hence, it is advisable not to include the GST component in turnover calculations, as GST is a statutory levy collected from the customer and remitted to the government through a separate liability account. Can MDR be claimed as a business expense? Section 34 of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 37 of the ITA 1961) allows a deduction of any expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of business from business income. The MDR is a business expense. It is the cost of accepting digital payments, a modern necessity for most merchants. Just as a merchant can deduct rent, electricity, salaries, and advertising, the merchant can also deduct the MDR paid for payment processing. From the merchant’s perspective, the MDR is an unavoidable cost of accepting digital payments. The ITAT Bangalore, in Velankani Information Systems Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bangalore - Trib.), held that credit card commission (MDR) is in the nature of normal bank charges. These charges are compensatory and incurred for business purposes. Under the ‘Commercial Expediency’ test, an expenditure is deductible if incurred to facilitate the carrying on of business. Since the judiciary has settled that MDR is not subject to TDS, the disallowance mechanism under Section 35(b)(i) of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 40(a)(ia) of the ITA 1961) is not triggered. Hence, for the merchant, the MDR is treated as a separate business expenditure under Section 34 and does not reduce turnover for threshold determination.

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

For other financial intermediaries (such as the acquiring bank, issuing bank, PSP bank, and UPI App), each entity recognises its share of the MDR as service income. Under the UPI MDR framework at a 0.4% rate, each participant discloses its share as business income under Section 26 of the ITA 2025 (corresponding to Section 28 of the ITA 1961). First, each party declares the gross MDR it receives as revenue, and the further distribution of MDR to the other party is recognised as an expense. As a result, the actual share is taxed as business income. Using the same Rs. 10,000 example above, the merchant recognises Rs. 10,000 as revenue and deducts MDR of Rs. 40 as a business expense. The other party would recognise the following revenue and expenses: Party Name

Revenue (A)

Expense (B)

Net Income (C = A – B)

Acquiring Bank

Rs. 40

Rs. 28

Rs. 12

Issuing Bank

Rs. 28

Rs. 12

Rs. 16

PSP Bank

Rs. 12

Rs. 8

Rs. 4

UPI App/TPAP

Rs. 8

13. Conclusion With UPI introducing its MDR from 15th October 2026, with a clear 40-30-20-10 distribution among four distinct parties, the tax position for merchants is largely settled. For tax professionals advising merchants, the guidance is straightforward: classify the MDR as a banking charge, rely on the JDS Apparels line of cases and Notification 47/2016 for the noTDS position, and maintain documentation to claim the full deduction under Section 34. For the merchant paying an Indian acquiring bank, the practical outcome is simple: no TDS, full deductibility, and no effect on turnover for audit or presumptive-scheme thresholds. Two qualifications are worth keeping in mind. First, this no-TDS position rests on extending a pre-UPI notification to a payment system it doesn’t name, so it is a strong reading rather than a confirmed one until the CBDT or a court rules on UPI MDR specifically. Second, the position changes where the counterparty is a foreign bank, where the exemption does not apply, and the TDS question turns instead on whether the payment is chargeable to tax in India under the applicable DTAA.

UPI-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) Who gets paid and who pays the tax?

About Us

Our Journey Founded

1972

Evolution

From a small family business to a leading technology-oriented Publishing/Product company

Expansion

Launch of Taxmann Advisory for personalized consulting solutions

Our Vision

Aim

Growth

Future

Achieve perfection, skill, and accuracy in all endeavour

Evolution into a company with strong independent divisions: Research & Editorial, Production, Sales & Marketing, and Technology

Continuously providing practical solutions through Taxmann Advisory

Our Strength Core Editorial and Research Division

Team Over 200 motivated legal professionals (Lawyers, Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries)

Expertise Monitoring and processing developments in judicial, administrative, and legislative fields with unparalleled skill and accuracy

Impact Helping businesses navigate complex tax and regulatory requirements with ease

Taxmann Today Legacy

Innovation

Commitment

Over 60 years of domain knowledge and trust

Technology-driven solutions for modern challenges

Ensuring perfection, skill, and accuracy in every solution provided

Our Core Domain Areas Income Tax Corporate Tax Advisory Trusts & NGO Consultancy TDS Advisory Global Mobility Services Personal Taxation Training Due Diligence

Goods & Services Tax Transaction Advisory Business Restructuring Classification & Rate Advisory Due Diligence Training Trade Facilitation Measures

Foreign Exchange Management Laws

UAE Corporate Tax

Due Dilligence Advisory Services Assistance in compounding of offences Transactions Services Investment outside India

Corporate Tax Advisory Corporate Structuring VAT Advisory Residential Status

Your Partners for Frictionless Advice Tax Advisory High-quality advice for all your Income-tax, GST, FEMA, and UAE Corporate Tax queries From a distinguished panel of experts

Tax Research Support Get real-time research support

Tax Restructuring and Implementation Support

By a team of trained researchers

Structure your business and processes in a tax-efficient way

To upscale the quality of your advice

Implement the SOPs for tax compliances

And save your manpower cost

Automate your ERPs to handle tax compliances

A Glimpse of the People Behind Taxmann

Naveen Wadhwa

Vinod K. Singhania

V.S. Datey

Research and Advisory [Corporate and Personal Tax]

Expert on Panel | Research and Advisory (Direct Tax)

Expert on Panel | Research and Advisory [Indirect Tax]

Chartered Accountant (All India 24th Rank)

Over 35 years of experience in tax laws

Holds 30+ years of experience

14+ years of experience in Income tax and International Tax

PhD in Corporate Economics and Legislation

Engaged in consulting and training professionals on Indirect Taxation

Expertise across real estate, technology, publication, education, hospitality, and manufacturing sectors

Author and resource person in 800+ seminars

A regular speaker at various industry forums, associations and industry workshops Author of various books on Indirect Taxation used by professionals and Department officials

Contributor to renowned media outlets on tax issues

S.S. Gupta

Expert on Panel | Research and Advisory [Indirect Tax] Chartered Accountant and Cost & Works Accountant 34+ Years of Experience in Indirect Taxation Bestowed with numerous prestigious scholarships and prizes Author of the book GST – How to Meet Your Obligations', which is widely referred to by Trade and Industry

Manoj Fogla

Nirav Shah

Expert on Panel | Research and Advisory [Charitable Trusts and NGOs]

Expert on Panel | Research and Advisory [UAE Corporate Tax]

Over three decades of practising experience on tax, legal and regulatory aspects of NPOs and Charitable Institutions

25+ years of experience and practicing in the UAE

Law practitioner, a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and also holds a Master's degree in Philosophy

Has previously worked with the KPMG

PhD from Utkal University, Doctoral Research on Social Accountability Standards for NPOs Author of several best-selling books for professionals, including the recent one titled 'Trust and NGO's Ready Reckoner' by Taxmann Drafted publications for The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi, such as FAQs on GST for NPOs & FAQs on FCRA for NPOs. Has been a faculty and resource person at various national and international forums

Chartered Accountant (All India 36th Rank)

Contact Us Taxmann Delhi 59/32, New Rohtak Road New Delhi – 110005 | India Phone | 011 45562222 Email | sales@taxmann.com Taxmann Mumbai 35, Bodke Building, Ground Floor, M.G. Road, Mulund (West), Opp. Mulund Railway Station Mumbai – 400080 | Maharashtra | India Phone | +91 93222 47686 Email | sales.mumbai@taxmann.com Taxmann Pune Office No. 14, First Floor, Prestige Point, 283 Shukrwar Peth, Bajirao Road, Opp. Chinchechi Talim, Pune – 411002 | Maharashtra | India Phone | +91 98224 11811 Email | sales.pune@taxmann.com Taxmann Ahmedabad 7, Abhinav Arcade, Ground Floor, Pritam Nagar Paldi Ahmedabad – 380007 | Gujarat | India Phone: +91 99099 84900 Email: sales.ahmedabad@taxmann.com Taxmann Hyderabad 4-1-369 Indralok Commercial Complex Shop No. 15/1 – Ground Floor, Reddy Hostel Lane Abids Hyderabad – 500001 | Telangana | India Phone | +91 93910 41461 Email | sales.hyderabad@taxmann.com Taxmann Chennai No. 26, 2, Rajan St, Rama Kamath Puram, T. Nagar Chennai – 600017 | Tamil Nadu | India Phone | +91 89390 09948 Email | sales.chennai@taxmann.com

www.taxmann.com

Taxmann's Analysis | UPI MDR: GST, TDS & Income-tax Implications