Because the deduction at source is applied to the payment as it leaves the payer, and the payer has no way of knowing what the receipt cost you to earn. The default position is therefore a deduction computed on the gross amount, which on a contract with real costs behind it takes far more than the eventual liability. A certificate under section 197 is the mechanism that changes this. It authorises the payer to deduct at a lower rate, or not at all, on the basis of computations put in front of the department in advance. Without it the money is not lost, but it becomes recoverable only later, through an Indian return.
How does lower or nil TDS certificate under section 197 work in practice?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
The application is made before the payment with computations and supporting evidence, and the certificate is issued for a specified payer, payee and period. The mechanism is the answer; the paperwork is what makes the mechanism available.
How it works in practice
The application is made before the payment with computations and supporting evidence, and the certificate is issued for a specified payer, payee and period. Obtained late, the over-deducted amount is recovered only through an Indian return.

Where the general answer is wrong
India's default deduction is often computed on the whole receipt rather than the profit. The lower-deduction certificate is what aligns the deduction with the actual liability.
Your next step
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Lower or nil TDS certificate under section 197. The quote comes before the work, in writing.
Reviewed against current guidance for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Written as general guidance, not as a recommendation for your situation. Talk it through with us before acting on it.
What these engagements turn on
Certificate obtained before the first invoice on an Indian services contract
A non-resident consultancy was about to invoice an Indian client whose finance team intended to deduct on the gross fee. We prepared the computation showing the costs behind the receipt, assembled the contract, the cost evidence and the residency documents, and applied before the first payment fell due. The certificate named the payer, the payee and the period it covered. What the engagement produced was a deduction aligned with the expected liability from the first invoice onwards, so no Indian return was needed purely to recover tax that should never have left the client.
Read how this one runsRecovering an over-deduction where the application came too late
A non-resident had already been paid, with tax deducted on the gross fee, before anyone raised the question of a certificate. Nothing could be done about the deduction itself, so the work moved to the recovery route: reconstructing the costs behind the receipt, computing the liability on the net position, and filing an Indian return that set the amount already withheld against it. The engagement produced a filed return claiming the excess, and a written note for the contract file setting out when the application has to be made on the next engagement for the deduction to be right first time.
Read how this one runsA fresh application when the contract ran past the certificate period
The certificate in place named a period that ended before the contract did, and the payer reverted to the default deduction on the next instalment without telling anyone. We reviewed what the engagement had actually earned and cost by that point, rebuilt the computation on that rather than the original projection, and applied again ahead of the following payment. The result was a second certificate covering the remainder of the term, and a payment schedule shared with the payer so each certificate is applied for before the period it needs to cover, not after a deduction has been taken.
Read how this one runsSeparate certificates for each Indian entity paying one supplier
A non-resident supplier invoiced several group companies in India under a single master agreement and assumed the certificate it held covered all of them. It did not, because the certificate names a payer. We mapped which entity actually settled which invoice, applied for the coverage that was missing, and set out in writing which paper each payer was to rely on. The engagement produced certificates matched to the paying entities, and one reference sheet for the supplier's billing team, which ended a recurring argument about why one payer had deducted more than the others.
Read how this one runsGetting a payer's finance team to apply a certificate it already held
The certificate had been issued and sent, and the payer deducted on the gross amount anyway, because the person processing the invoice could not tell whether the paper matched the payment in front of them. The work was largely reconciliation: confirming that the payer name, the payee name and the payment date all fell inside what the certificate covered, then writing that out in a form a finance team could check quickly. It produced a corrected deduction on the following instalment, and a covering note the client now sends with every invoice into India.
Read how this one runsRebuilding a cost computation the department had not accepted
An earlier application had been made on a summary of costs with nothing behind it, and it came back with queries that outlived the payment date. We started again from the contract and the underlying cost records, tied each element of the computation to a document, and set out the basis on which the net position had been arrived at. The second application was filed ahead of the next payment and the certificate issued on it. The engagement produced a documented computation the client can update each year rather than reconstruct, and a deduction that tracks the liability.
Read how this one runsA Certificate Obtained Before the Money Moved
An application for a reduced or nil deduction is made in advance and decided on the computed liability, not on the gross amount. Applying after the payment leaves a refund claim in place of a certificate.
Read how this one runsIndian Rent Collected While Resident Somewhere Else
Rent from Indian property is taxed in India and again where you live, with relief on one side only. The file gets the Indian deduction right first, then claims the credit on the home return against what was actually paid.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
Holding structures live or die on treaty access, beneficial ownership and substance — the MLI's principal-purpose test now sits over every arrangement.
A holding structure is only as good as its reporting. Foreign affiliates, accrued passive income and distributions each carry their own return, and the penalties on those attach to the form rather than to any tax being owed — so a structure that saves tax can still cost money if the information returns are late.
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
The follow-up questions on Lower or nil TDS certificate under section 197
That is the point of it. The application is made before the payment, not after, and it sets out what you expect to receive, what earning it costs you, and what you say the correct liability is, with supporting evidence attached. If the department accepts the computation, the certificate is issued for a specified payer, a specified payee and a specified period, and the payer deducts on that basis while it runs. The sequence matters more than anything else here. An application made once the invoice has been settled cannot undo a deduction that has already happened.
It does not reach backwards. A certificate directs the deduction on payments made while it is in force, for the payer and the period it names, so a deduction already taken stands. The over-deducted amount is still recoverable, but by a different route: an Indian return, on which the liability is computed on the net position and the excess already withheld is set against it. That is slower and more work than obtaining the certificate first, which is why we treat the application as part of the contract timetable rather than a tax job that can follow along behind it.
No. The certificate is issued for a specified payer, payee and period, so it speaks to one paying relationship. Where the same income arrives from several Indian customers, each paying relationship has to be covered, and the practical work is keeping track of which payer holds which certificate and for how long. This is the detail that most often goes wrong later in a contract. The certificate is in place, the customer changes the entity that settles its invoices, and the new entity is not the payer named on the paper it has been handed.
Computations first, because the application is an argument about an amount: what the receipt is, what earning it costs, and what the liability on the net position comes to. Then the material standing behind those workings, which means the contract that generates the payment, the cost evidence, and the documents establishing who you are and where you are resident for tax. An application that asserts a conclusion with no workings behind it is the one that comes back with questions, and questions consume exactly the time the application was meant to buy before the payment falls due.
Payments made after the period named on the certificate fall back to the default deduction, because the authority the payer was relying on has run out. Nothing about the underlying position has changed, but the paper that told the payer to deduct less no longer covers the payment in front of it. The answer is a fresh application, made before the next payment is due, on computations updated to reflect what the contract has actually produced so far. Leaving it until the payer has deducted turns a certificate application into a recovery claim on an Indian return.
It tells a US payer that you are not a US person and, where you are entitled, claims the treaty rate on the income they are about to pay you — so withholding comes off at the reduced rate rather than the statutory one. It goes to the payer or the broker, never to the IRS, and it expires, so a stale form is a common cause of over-withholding. Getting it in before payment is the difference between a lower rate and a refund claim. See Form W-8BEN.
The statement a US payer issues to a non-resident showing US-source income paid and tax withheld — the non-resident counterpart to a 1099. Use it two ways. In your own country it evidences the US tax paid for credit purposes. And where the rate withheld was higher than your treaty entitlement, or the income was not taxable at all, the way back to the money is a US non-resident return claiming the refund. Check the income and exemption codes before assuming the rate was right. See Form 1042-S.



