Section 192 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.402

Section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 402 (Interpretation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 402 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 192 is 254 ITR 121 (Guj) ITO v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 435), cited in 173 of the 853 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 192

254 ITR 121 (Guj) ITO v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
243 ITR 435 · 2000 · High Court
173
citing judgments
247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

CIT vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 0356 (BOMBAY); CIT v. Semiconductor Complex Ltd.
282 ITR 263 · 2006 · High Court
159
citing judgments

An employer making a bona fide estimate of taxable salary income is acting in accordance with established legal precedent.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

Science Corp. India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
163 Taxmann.com 693 · Reported
56
citing judgments

An order dismissing all grounds of appeal based on a single issue, in violation of Section 250(6), is an unlawful adjudication and renders the order irregular, making it a fit case for remand.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITAT
314 ITR 14 · High Court
55
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot travel beyond the provisions of law when adjudicating matters, as doing so is barred by jurisdiction and renders the action otiose.

DIT v. Abbey Business Services Private Limited
122 Taxmann.com 174 · 2020 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Expenses incurred and reimbursed for seconded employees under a secondment agreement are not liable to tax deduction at source and do not constitute 'fees for technical services'. The secondment agreement itself forms an independent arrangement for securing services.

Sunil v. Motiani v. ITO (International Taxation)
33 Taxmann.com 252 · 2013 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

The applicability of a tax treaty can determine the levy of surcharge on income. When a tax treaty is decided in favour of the assessee, related grounds of appeal concerning surcharge may not require separate adjudication.

1. CIT v. Appollo Hospitals Int Ltd.
375 ITR 49 · 2015 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Retainer doctors engaged by a hospital fall under the purview of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, requiring TDS, and not Section 192 which applies to salaries.

Judgments on Section 192

Dr. Batras Positive Health Clinic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 3193/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3193 & 3194/Mum/2015, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dr. Batra’S Positive Health Clinic Pvt.Ltd. Ito-(Tds)(Osd), Range-1(3) 307/308, Arcadia, 3Rd Floor, 8Th Floor, Room No.811, Smt. K.G. Mittal Vs. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Pan:Aabcd 3857 G Road (W)Mumbai-400 002. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Smt. Pooja Swaroop अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind Jhaveri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dtd. 02/03/2015 Of The Cit (A)-59,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S).As The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicating Them Together For The Sake Of Convenience. Effective Ground Of Appeal Is Treating The Assessee In Default(A-I-D) U/S.201(1) & 201 (1A) Of The Act.

For Appellant: S/ Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind JhaveriFor Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop
Section 192Section 201(1)

JCIT, Coimbatore vs. Chroma Print India Pvt . Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2083/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

For Appellant: Ms. Veni Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273