Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 393 (Tax to be deducted at source) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 393 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 194-I is Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (51 ITR 353), cited in 148 of the 307 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 from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

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
46
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

Madhvi Rameshbhai Bavlecha, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2372/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & The Income Tax Officer, Madhvi Rameshbhai Bavlecha, Vs. Ward 1(8), B-1994, Opp. Patel Park, Bhavnagar. Akshardhar Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar H.O, Bhavnagar-364001. [Pan :Aqyb9635 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Deependra Kumar , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 25.04.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred, Both In Law & On Facts, In Passing Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Action Of Reopening The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Not Justified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred, Both In Law & On Facts, In Confirming Addition Of Rs.29,24,799/-In Respect Of Alleged Unaccounted Transaction. Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar , Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F