High-Value Bank Transactions
High-Value Bank Transactions

High-Value Bank Transactions in India: Statutory Thresholds, Digital Scrutiny Triggers, and Compliance Mandates

I. Strategic Overview: The Digitization of Tax Compliance and Scrutiny

The landscape of income tax compliance in India has undergone a profound transformation, shifting from reliance on manual audits and random sampling to comprehensive, automated data analytics (DTA). The Income Tax Department (ITD) now employs sophisticated digital tracking tools to monitor high-value financial activities, thereby promoting voluntary compliance and proactively identifying tax evasion risks.1 This strategic shift necessitates a rigorous understanding of the statutory reporting requirements imposed on financial institutions.

A. Statutory Mandate for Information Collection (Section 285BA)

The foundation of the ITD’s surveillance capability lies in Section 285BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the reporting of Specified Financial Transactions (SFTs). This provision requires designated financial entities, including banks, post offices, mutual fund companies, and registrars, to furnish an annual information return detailing high-value transactions conducted by taxpayers during the financial year.

The purpose of the SFT framework is unequivocally to monitor high-value transactions and correlate them with the taxpayer’s declared income, acting as a crucial check against the accumulation of undisclosed wealth (black money). Failure by a reporting entity to furnish the SFT data accurately or on time can lead to statutory consequences for the institution, ensuring compliance across the entire financial ecosystem. The initial report furnished by these institutions is typically submitted in Form 61A or, for specified institutions/reportable accounts, Form 61B.

B. Key Information Aggregation Tools

The data collected via SFT reports is processed and presented to the taxpayer through an integrated digital system, creating a definitive financial fingerprint used by the ITD to justify scrutiny.

1. Statement of Financial Transaction (SFT)

The SFT remains the primary mechanism for financial institutions to disclose transactions that cross specific monetary thresholds stipulated in Rule 114E. These transactions encompass a broad range of activities, including cash deposits, payment of dividends or interest, and transactions in listed securities and mutual fund units. The reporting must be done annually, typically on or before May 31st immediately following the financial year, although transactions concerning listed securities and mutual funds require half-yearly filing.

2. Annual Information Statement (AIS) and Form 26AS

The comprehensive view of a taxpayer’s financial activity is displayed in the Annual Information Statement (AIS), accessible via the ITD’s e-filing portal. The AIS aggregates information from various reporting sources, including the detailed SFT data. It presents several crucial categories of data, such as TDS/TCS information, interest income, high-value investment transactions, and foreign remittances.

A critical feature of the AIS is its dual-value display: the “Reported Value” (submitted by the financial entity) and the “Modified Value” (the value after considering taxpayer feedback). By providing this comprehensive financial profile upfront, the ITD strategically shifts the primary compliance burden onto the taxpayer. The information presented in the AIS demonstrates that the tax authority is fully aware of these transactions. Therefore, any failure to report or satisfactorily explain an item appearing in the AIS constitutes an omission, providing prima facie justification for intensified scrutiny and potential penalties.

Form 26AS primarily reflects details related to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS) but also contains certain SFT transactions. Taxpayers are therefore mandated to reconcile the information present in both the AIS and Form 26AS against the income declared in their Income Tax Return (ITR) to ensure consistency.

II. Definitive Thresholds for Core Banking Transactions (SFT Triggers)

Bank accounts serve as the primary conduit for the movement of high-value funds, and the ITD maintains stringent reporting thresholds designed to capture significant activity. These limits are aggregated based on the individual’s Permanent Account Number (PAN) across all accounts held within the reporting entity.

A. Cash Deposits in Savings and Current Accounts

Cash deposits are among the most frequently flagged transactions, as they often represent unaccounted funds being infused into the formal financial system.

The core reporting threshold for aggregated cash deposits in a savings account (or any non-current account) is set at ₹10 Lakh or more during a single financial year. Banks and cooperative banks are required to report this activity under Rule 114E. For instance, if a customer deposits ₹12 Lakh in cash across several transactions into their savings account over a financial year, the bank must report the aggregated total to the ITD. This limit is applied cumulatively across all accounts linked to the individual’s PAN within that banking system.

For cash deposits and credits into a current account, which typically handle higher volumes due to business operations, the informal or proposed reporting threshold is often higher, sometimes cited at ₹50 Lakh. Separate from the annual SFT threshold, banks also require mandatory submission of PAN details for any single cash transaction exceeding ₹50,000.

B. Fixed Deposits (Time Deposits) and Interest Payments

Investments in fixed deposits (FDs) and recurring deposits (RDs) are also closely monitored, focusing both on the principal investment amount and the resulting interest income.

1. Aggregate Investment Threshold

Financial institutions must report the aggregate amount of investments made in Time Deposits (which statutorily includes recurring deposits) if the total investment reaches ₹10 Lakh or more in a financial year. This threshold applies cumulatively across all FD/RD holdings linked to the taxpayer’s PAN within the entire financial institution network. Exceeding this limit does not automatically denote tax evasion but mandates an explanation for the source of the principal funds, particularly if the investment is disproportionate to the declared income.

2. Interest Income Reporting and TDS Compliance

While the investment itself triggers SFT, the interest earned triggers mandatory Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and reporting via Form 26AS. If the aggregated annual interest income from all FDs exceeds ₹50,000 (or ₹1,00,000 for senior citizens), the bank must deduct TDS at 10%. If the taxpayer fails to link their PAN, the TDS rate increases to 20%.

Taxpayers whose total taxable income is below the basic exemption limit may submit Form 15G (for non-senior citizens) or Form 15H (for senior citizens) to prevent the TDS deduction. However, the crucial point for compliance is that utilizing Form 15G/15H to avoid TDS does not exempt the underlying FD investment (if $ge ₹10 text{ Lakh}$) or the total interest earned (if $ge ₹50,000$) from SFT reporting. The bank still reports the transaction value to the ITD. If the taxpayer’s subsequent ITR declaration contradicts the low-income statement made on Form 15G/15H, an immediate and severe discrepancy is created, virtually guaranteeing a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2).

C. Cash Withdrawals (Section 194N and TDS)

High-value cash withdrawals are monitored not for income generation, but as an anti-cash economy measure under Section 194N, which mandates TDS deduction to deter the excessive use of physical currency.

1. Thresholds and Rates

The TDS trigger limits for cash withdrawals are dependent on the taxpayer’s filing history:

  • For ITR Filers: If the person has filed ITR for any one of the three preceding Assessment Years, TDS is deducted at a rate of 2% on aggregate cash withdrawals exceeding ₹1 Crore in a financial year.
  • For Non-Filers: If the person has not filed ITR for all three previous Assessment Years, a stricter regime applies: TDS of 2% is deducted on withdrawals exceeding ₹20 Lakh, and 5% is deducted on amounts exceeding ₹1 Crore.

This differentiated threshold highlights a key distinction in the ITD’s strategy. While the low cash deposit limit ($ge ₹10 text{ Lakh}$) aims primarily to verify the source of funds entering the system (potential undeclared income), the high cash withdrawal limit (₹1 Crore / ₹20 Lakh) aims to deter the use of cash for major transactions (funds exiting the electronic system). Even if TDS is paid on withdrawals, repeated high-value transactions may still invite verification to ensure the funds are linked to legitimate needs and not utilized for transactions prohibited under statutes like Section 269ST.

Table 1: Key SFT Thresholds for Core Banking Transactions

Nature of TransactionStatutory Trigger Point (Threshold)Reporting AuthorityStatutory Provision
Cash Deposit in Savings/Non-Current A/C (Aggregate FY)≥ ₹10 LakhBank/Co-operative Bank/Post OfficeRule 114E (SFT)
Time Deposits (FD/RD) (Aggregate FY)≥ ₹10 LakhBank/FI/Post OfficeRule 114E (SFT)
Cash Withdrawal (TDS Trigger – ITR Filers) (Aggregate FY)≥ ₹1 CroreBank/Post OfficeSection 194N
Cash Withdrawal (TDS Trigger – Non-Filers) (Aggregate FY)≥ ₹20 LakhBank/Post OfficeSection 194N

III. High-Value Transactions Routed Through Banking Channels

The scope of SFT reporting extends beyond simple account deposits and withdrawals to capture key consumption, investment, and cross-border activities that pass through the banking system, often acting as secondary flags for discrepancies between declared income and lifestyle.

A. Credit Card Payments and Expenditure

Credit card usage is a direct indicator of consumption and spending power, making high-value payments a significant focus area for ITD scrutiny.

1. Cash Payment and Electronic Payment Limits

Banks are required under Rule 114E to report credit card payments that meet specific thresholds :

The cash payment threshold of ₹1 Lakh is notably low. This is not merely a reporting formality; it serves as a powerful deterrent against the utilization of small or repeated sums of undocumented cash to finance personal consumption. By setting this limit so conservatively, the ITD ensures that persistent use of undisclosed cash for lifestyle expenses is flagged, requiring the taxpayer to justify the source of these non-income funds used for repayment. Disproportionately high credit card spending relative to declared income is a classic flag for scrutiny, suggesting potential undeclared sources of wealth.

B. Investment and Securities Transactions

Transactions involving capital markets are closely monitored to ensure accurate reporting of capital gains, dividends, and other investment income.

Reporting entities, including banks, mutual funds, and brokers, report specific investment activity to the ITD:

  • Mutual Funds: Any payment made to a Mutual Fund for the purchase of units exceeding ₹50,000 must be reported.
  • Listed Securities/Shares: The sale or purchase of company shares or contracts for the sale or purchase of listed securities must be reported if the transaction exceeds ₹1 Lakh per transaction. Furthermore, capital gains arising from the transfer of listed securities are also required to be reported to the ITD for pre-filling the return of income.

These SFT reports on investments allow the ITD to cross-reference the volume of asset acquisition against the income declared by the taxpayer, rapidly identifying cases where substantial capital gains or investment purchases are missed during the ITR filing.

C. Property and Real Estate Transactions

Real estate deals are subject to rigorous multi-layered scrutiny, involving registration authorities, banks, and the TDS mechanism, to prevent the use of undisclosed funds in the acquisition or sale of immovable property.

1. SFT Reporting and TDS

The mandatory SFT reporting threshold for the purchase or sale of immovable property is ₹30 Lakh or more.

A powerful complementary mechanism is the TDS requirement under Section 194-IA. This section mandates that the purchaser of immovable property deduct 1% TDS on the sale consideration if the value exceeds ₹50 Lakh. The buyer must deposit this TDS with the government, and this action formally establishes the verified transaction value in the ITD’s records, providing a key verification point for the seller’s income declaration.

2. Prohibition on Cash Payments

Crucially, Section 269ST strictly prohibits receiving or paying an amount exceeding ₹2 Lakh in cash in respect of a single transaction or a transaction relating to one event. Violation of this provision attracts a severe penalty equivalent to 100% of the amount received in cash, which targets both the seller and any person facilitating the transfer of cash funds into the banking system for a property deal.

The layering of reports (SFT by registrar, TDS by buyer, and bank deposit reports) ensures that the same transaction is recorded by multiple independent entities. This systemic cross-verification makes data inconsistencies difficult to hide and significantly increases the probability of a scrutiny notice if the declared income does not align with the transaction value.

D. Foreign Remittances and Travel Expenses

Cross-border transactions represent another major area of scrutiny, particularly under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS).

1. Foreign Remittance (LRS) and TCS

Under Section 206C(1G) of the Income Tax Act, banks and authorized dealers are required to collect Tax Collected at Source (TCS) when an Indian resident transfers funds overseas under the LRS.

TCS applies to aggregate remittances exceeding ₹10 Lakh in a financial year.26 The applicable rate varies significantly depending on the purpose, ranging from NIL (for education/medical self-funded up to ₹10 Lakh) to 20% (for purchase of overseas tour packages or other investment purposes exceeding the ₹10 Lakh limit). The TCS collected is reflected in the taxpayer’s Form 26AS, establishing the total value of foreign funds transferred and making it readily auditable against the declared financial status.

2. Cash Foreign Currency Transactions

A lower cash threshold also applies to certain international activities: any payment made in cash in connection with travel to a foreign country or for the purchase of any foreign currency in cash exceeding ₹50,000 at one time must be reported via SFT. This low threshold monitors cash used for foreign exchange, aiming to capture individuals who use undisclosed cash resources for international activities.

IV. Linking SFT Data to Income Tax Notices: The Mismatch Mechanism

The transition from a high-value transaction being reported to a formal tax notice being issued is governed by the ITD’s automated mismatch identification system, which compares AIS data against the filed ITR.

A. The Automated Mismatch Identification

The AIS serves as the ITD’s central hub for risk assessment.5 The moment an SFT report detailing a high-value bank transaction (e.g., a $ge ₹10 text{ Lakh}$ cash deposit) is consolidated into the AIS, it is automatically flagged for review if no corresponding entry or explanation exists in the taxpayer’s ITR.

Before resorting to formal scrutiny, the ITD frequently utilizes E-Campaigns and the Compliance Portal to seek proactive explanation for these flagged discrepancies.27 This pre-assessment query allows the taxpayer an opportunity to submit feedback or documentation regarding the source and nature of the transaction (e.g., claiming the deposit was a loan repayment or a gift). This proactive engagement, which updates the ‘Modified Value’ in the AIS, is a critical procedural tool that can potentially prevent the escalation to a formal scrutiny assessment.

A persistent or unexplained discrepancy between the AIS/SFT data and the ITR triggers formalized action under various sections of the Income Tax Act.

1. Section 143(1) Intimation

This is the automated, initial processing notice. It primarily addresses minor mismatches, such as arithmetic errors or discrepancies between the TDS/TCS claimed in the ITR and the amount reflected in Form 26AS/AIS. This intimation may lead to an automatic adjustment of tax liability.

2. Section 143(2) Scrutiny Assessment

A notice under Section 143(2) signifies that the taxpayer’s return has been selected for a detailed, in-depth examination by the Assessing Officer (AO). The selection is directly driven by the analysis of high-value transactions captured via SFT that show inconsistencies, such as:

The notice requires the taxpayer to attend the assessment proceedings and provide documentation to justify all discrepancies, with the ultimate aim of ensuring that income is not understated and tax liability is accurately computed.

3. Section 148/147 Reassessment (Income Escaping Assessment)

This is invoked when the AO believes that taxable income has escaped assessment in a previous financial year, often because the SFT data relating to the transaction was processed or cross-referenced years after the original ITR was filed. The time limits for issuing a Section 148 notice are significantly extended, creating a long-term compliance exposure for high-value transactions :

  • Standard Limit (Escaped Income $< ₹50 text{ Lakh}$): Within 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
  • Extended Limit (Escaped Income $ge ₹50 text{ Lakh}$): If the amount of income escaping assessment is $ge ₹50 text{ Lakh}$, the AO has the authority to issue a Section 148 notice up to 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year (effective from September 1, 2024, previously up to 10 years in certain cases).

The critical implication of this extended limitation period is that taxpayers must maintain rigorous documentation supporting the source and nature of all high-value bank transactions (e.g., $ge ₹10 text{ Lakh}$ cash deposits or $ge ₹50 text{ Lakh}$ property deals) for a minimum of seven years. The ability of the ITD to reopen assessments years later dictates a mandatory long-term record-keeping strategy to effectively defend against a delayed notice.

V. Consequences of Unexplained Bank Credits and Investments (The Punitive Regime)

The most severe consequence for failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for a high-value bank deposit is the application of “deemed income” provisions, which impose mandatory, extremely high tax rates under Section 115BBE.

A. Deemed Income Provisions

When a discrepancy is identified during scrutiny (Section 143(2) or 148), the AO may invoke sections that treat the unexplained amount as income.

1. Section 68: Unexplained Cash Credits

Section 68 applies directly to bank deposits. If any sum is credited to the taxpayer’s account and the taxpayer offers no satisfactory explanation regarding the nature or source of the funds, the AO is empowered to treat that amount as the taxpayer’s income for that year.

The burden of proof is entirely reversed onto the taxpayer. It is insufficient merely to state that the amount was a loan or gift. The taxpayer must affirmatively prove three things to the satisfaction of the AO:

If the taxpayer claims the money came from a third party but cannot prove that third party’s financial capacity, the entire sum may be taxed under Section 68.

2. Sections 69, 69A, and 69B: Unexplained Assets

These sections apply when funds, possibly originating from unexplained bank credits, are converted into assets. If a taxpayer makes investments (Section 69), is found to be the owner of unexplained money or valuable articles (Section 69A), or acquires assets whose value is under-disclosed (Section 69B), and fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of funds, the value of the investment or money is deemed to be the taxpayer’s income.

B. Punitive Taxation under Section 115BBE

Income deemed under Sections 68, 69, or related provisions is subjected to a mandatory, non-negotiable punitive tax rate under Section 115BBE. This regime is designed to make tax evasion economically catastrophic.

1. Calculation of Effective Tax Rate

The effective tax rate on unexplained income is approximately 78% :

  • Income Tax Rate: A flat rate of 60% is levied without providing any benefit of the basic exemption limit.
  • Surcharge: A surcharge of 25% is applied to the tax amount (60%).
  • Health and Education Cess: A mandatory cess of 4% is applied to the combined total of the tax and surcharge.

Furthermore, no deduction, allowance, or set-off of any loss (such as capital losses or business losses) is permitted against this deemed income. This tax structure ensures that the financial penalty for using undisclosed bank funds is disproportionately high.

Table 2: Punitive Taxation for Unexplained Income (Section 115BBE)

Component of TaxApplicable Rate/FormulaEffective Rate
Income Tax Rate (Flat)60%60.00%
Surcharge (25% on Tax)60 % x 25 %15.00%
Tax + Surcharge60 % + 15 %75.00%
Health and Education Cess (4% on Tax + Surcharge)75 % x 4 %3.00%
Total Effective Tax Rate–78.00%

C. Penalties and Risk Amplification

In addition to the 78% tax liability, non-disclosure of income proven to be unexplained (bank credits) can lead to penalties under Section 270A for ‘under-reporting’ or ‘misreporting’ of income. The penalty for misreporting income can be up to 200% of the tax amount payable on the misreported sum.

The combination of the 78% effective tax rate and potential penalties means that the total financial outlay (tax + penalty) resulting from an unexplained bank deposit can easily exceed the original deposit amount. The strategic objective of the law is clear: eliminate the economic incentive for using undisclosed funds by ensuring that the cost of discovery far outweighs the benefit of evasion. A taxpayer can, however, avoid the penalty under Section 270A if the unexplained cash credit is voluntarily included in the ITR and the 78% tax liability is paid on or before the end of the financial year.

VI. Expert Advisory: Proactive Compliance and Response Strategy

In the current data-driven environment, effective tax compliance is synonymous with preemptive data management. A reactive strategy focused solely on responding to notices is insufficient and costly.

A. Proactive Compliance: Reconciling AIS Before Filing

The highest-value compliance step a taxpayer can take is to proactively reconcile their financial records against the data held by the ITD, utilizing the AIS portal.

1. Mandatory AIS Review and Reconciliation

Taxpayers must log in to the e-filing portal and thoroughly review their Annual Information Statement (AIS) and Form 26AS for the relevant financial year. Every SFT entry, particularly high-value bank deposits, FD investments, and credit card payments, must be cross-verified against internal financial records.

2. Utilizing the Feedback Mechanism

If a taxpayer identifies an entry in the AIS that is incorrect, duplicated, or has been wrongly attributed to their PAN, they must utilize the feedback facility provided through the ‘e-Campaign’ portal. This allows the taxpayer to submit a response, dispute the transaction value, or clarify the source of the funds. This logged feedback becomes the ‘Modified Value’ in the AIS.1 This process is critical because it ensures the ITD is aware of the taxpayer’s position and often prevents the automatic generation of a scrutiny notice based on that initial discrepancy, effectively circumventing the adversarial stage of a formal assessment.

3. Pre-emptive Filing of Updated Returns

If the AIS review reveals that a high-value bank transaction was inadvertently missed or incorrectly detailed in the original ITR filing, the taxpayer must immediately take corrective action. This is accomplished by filing a Revised Return (under Section 139(5)) to correct errors or omissions. By correcting the omission before the ITD initiates formal scrutiny, the taxpayer demonstrates good faith and significantly mitigates the risk of penalties associated with misreporting.

B. Responding Effectively to Scrutiny Notices

If a formal notice is received under Section 143(2) or Section 148, a structured, professional response is mandatory.

1. Immediate Review and Understanding

The recipient must first ascertain the precise section under which the notice was issued and the exact transaction or discrepancy being questioned, which is invariably linked back to AIS/SFT data. Understanding the legal basis of the query is the foundation of a robust defense.

2. Mandatory Documentation and Justification

The core of the response involves gathering and presenting comprehensive documentary evidence that legally justifies the source and nature of the questioned funds. For bank transactions, key documentation includes :

  • Detailed bank statements covering the deposit and withdrawal periods.
  • Proof of the taxpayer’s original source of income (salary statements, business financial reports, capital gains calculations).
  • Specific legal instruments for non-income credits, such as registered Gift Deeds, legal inheritance documents, or formal, documented Loan Agreements.
  • Documentation proving the creditworthiness of the source party, which is crucial for defending against Section 68 scrutiny.

The failure to prove the creditworthiness of the source party is a common pitfall. For example, if a taxpayer claims a deposit was a loan from a relative, but the relative’s ITR shows insufficient income to justify that loan amount, the explanation will be deemed unsatisfactory, triggering the 78% punitive tax. Therefore, all documentation must be consistent and verifiable across the entire transactional network.

3. Promptness and Professional Consultation

The response, accompanied by comprehensive documentation, must be submitted promptly within the stipulated deadline using the official compliance portal.35 Given the complexities of defending against Sections 68, 69, and the extended reach of Section 148, specialized consultation with a tax professional is crucial for drafting legally sound justifications and managing the assessment process, especially for high-value transactions exceeding the ₹50 Lakh escaped income threshold.

VII. Conclusion: Mandatory Transparency in the Digital Age

The proliferation of digital reporting mechanisms, specifically the Statement of Financial Transaction (SFT) framework, has irrevocably bound high-value bank transactions to the income tax compliance system. The low reporting threshold of ₹10 Lakh for cash deposits and FD investments, coupled with stringent monitoring of lifestyle expenses via credit card payments ($ge ₹1 text{ Lakh}$ cash) and foreign remittances ($ge ₹10 text{ Lakh}$), ensures that nearly all significant financial activity is captured and cross-referenced against the taxpayer’s declared income.

The ITD’s operational strategy leverages the Annual Information Statement (AIS) not just as an informative tool, but as a compliance ultimatum. Mismatches detected automatically by comparing SFT data in the AIS against the ITR are the direct cause of statutory notices under Section 143(2) or, for older, undisclosed income, Section 148.

The greatest risk to taxpayers stems from the punitive regime under Section 115BBE, where failure to satisfactorily explain the source of a bank credit (Section 68) results in an effective tax rate of 78% and potential penalties up to 200% of the tax due. To navigate this system, proactive reconciliation of the AIS before filing the ITR, utilizing the feedback mechanism to address anomalies, and meticulous record-keeping for several years are no longer discretionary measures but mandatory pillars of expert-level tax compliance.

Table 3: Comprehensive Threshold Guide for Bank and Financial Transactions

Nature of TransactionTransaction TypeThreshold (₹)Legal ProvisionCompliance Risk
Cash Deposit (Savings/Non-Current A/C)Aggregate Cash Deposit ≥ ₹10 LakhRule 114E (SFT) Source verification, high Section 68 risk.
Time Deposits (FD/RD)Aggregate Investment≥ ₹10 LakhRule 114E (SFT) Source verification for principal investment.
Credit Card Payment (Cash)Aggregate Cash Payment≥ ₹1 LakhRule 114E (SFT) Monitoring small/repeated cash infusions for consumption.
Credit Card Payment (Electronic)Aggregate Electronic Payment≥ ₹10 LakhRule 114E (SFT) Disproportionate expenditure relative to income.
Cash Withdrawal (Non-Filers)Aggregate Cash Withdrawal≥ ₹20 LakhSec 194N (TDS Trigger) Punitive TDS deduction and anti-cash usage measure.
Property Purchase/SaleValue of Immovable Property ≥ ₹30 LakhSFT Reporting Cross-verified by Sec 194-IA (TDS at 1% if $ge ₹50 text{ Lakh}$).
Mutual Fund PurchasePayment for Purchase of Units≥ ₹50,000 LakhRule 114E (SFT) Verifying capital gains reporting.
Foreign Currency Purchase (Cash)Single TransactionExceeding ₹50,000Rule 114E (SFT) Monitoring undisclosed cash used for international travel.
Foreign Remittance (LRS)Aggregate Remittance≥ ₹10 LakhSec 206C(1G) (TCS Trigger) Monitoring capital outflow and TCS compliance.