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

Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B