Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 194-I is Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (51 ITR 353), cited in 148 of the 50 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194-I

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT
51 ITR 353 · 1964 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property is classified as business income only if the letting activity constitutes a business from a businessman's perspective, rather than mere exploitation of property by an owner. The company's object clause is not the sole determinative factor in this assessment.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta
83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

Income must be assessed under a specific head if it clearly falls within one. The residuary head 'income from other sources' under Section 56 can only be invoked if the income cannot be classified under any other specific head of charge.

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
386 ITR 500 · 2016 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.
414 ITR 1 · 2019 · High Court
82
citing judgments

Service tax paid to the Government of India is not 'on account of' the provision of services for mineral oil exploration and production, and thus does not form part of the aggregate taxable amount under Section 44BB(2)(a) and (b).

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.
112 Taxmann.com 322 · 2019 · Supreme Court
71
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. This principle applies to assessment years prior to the amendment by Finance Bill 2022.

Universal Plast Ltd. v. CIT
237 ITR 454 · 1999 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee from leasing or letting out assets, whether categorized as lease amount, rent, or license fee, is a mixed question of law and fact to determine if it falls under 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. No precise test exists, and the determination must consider the perspective of a businessman, the specific facts, and the true interpretation of the letting agreement.

CIT v. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc.
300 ITR 265 · 2008 · High Court
50
citing judgments

For computing profits under the presumptive taxation scheme of section 44BB, gross revenue excludes service tax collected and deposited by the assessee but includes mobilization/demobilization fees for offshore services.

Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT
160 Taxmann.com 12 · 2024 · Supreme Court
43
citing judgments

Amounts paid to distributors who purchase goods on their own account and sell them in their territory, acting as independent contractors on a principal-to-principal basis, do not constitute commission or brokerage. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194H on such transactions.

CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.
266 ITR 685 · 2004 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Rental income earned by letting out a property predominantly as bare letting is assessable under the head 'Income from house property', even if the assessee is the owner.

Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavano v. DCIT
132 Taxmann.com 293 · 2021 · High Court
33
citing judgments

The tax department cannot speculate to deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer to the petitioner.

Judgments on Section 194-I

SMART LIFESTYLE MULTI TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 384/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.384/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 ) Smart Lifestyle Multitrade Pvt Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(4), B/190, Bda Housing Colony, Bhubaneswar Baramunda, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aancs 4516 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.6.2025 Passed By Ld Jcit(A)-3, Chennai In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/10162/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty,Fs Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Real Estate. It Was The Submission That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & Assessment Came To Be Completed Us.143(3) Of The Act, In Which An Addition Of Rs.1,00,000/- Has Been Made In Respect Of Advertisement Charges Paid To Sister Concern. It Was The Submission That The Assessing Officer Had 2 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.384/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 )

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 194Section 40

Showing 120 of 50 · Page 1 of 3