Section 194A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194A 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 194A is CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315), cited in 370 of the 1,500 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194A

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.
236 ITR 315 · 1999 · Supreme Court
370
citing judgments

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.
377 ITR 635 · 2015 · High Court
369
citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd.
206 ITR 727 · 1994 · High Court
260
citing judgments

The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India, and decisions of a High Court are binding on subordinate courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction but not on courts or tribunals outside its jurisdiction.

Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 288 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

A deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source if the recipient has already paid the income tax directly. The onus is on the deductor to prove that the recipient has paid the tax.

Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT
136 ITD 23 · 2012 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenses that remain payable at the end of the financial year, not to expenses that have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of tax at source.

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
172 ITR 257 · 1988 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
144 ITR 474 · 1983 · High Court
119
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that a lump sum revenue expenditure, which is of a significant amount and provides benefits spread over several years, can be allowed as a deduction proportionately over the period of benefit. This approach prevents distortion of the profits of a single assessment year.

CIT v. Noble and Hewitt (I) P. Ltd.
305 ITR 324 · 2008 · High Court
109
citing judgments

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act does not apply to disallow an amount (such as statutory dues like service tax or GST) if it has not been debited to the Profit & Loss account and no deduction for it has been claimed by the assessee.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT
258 ITR 601 · 2002 · High Court
90
citing judgments

Interest paid by banks is allowable as a deduction in computing total income. The decision distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijaya Bank regarding the deductibility of such interest.

Judgments on Section 194A

Vision Enterprises, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 192/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 192/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vision Enterprises, Hotel Sulai, Dhankawadi, Pune. Pan: Aajfv0168P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay Garg Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; With The Following Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Revisionary Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 22/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16; “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay GargFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

Javaharlal S Dhariwal, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40Section 57

The Murshidabad District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Murshidabad vs. ACIT (TDS), Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 459 & 460/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Murshidabad District Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, (Tds), Cir-1, Kolkata Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 48 & 49, B.B. Sen Road Berhampore – 742101 (Murshidabad) [Pan : Aabat2105M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 16/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighty Seven (87) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. On Perusal Of The Grounds, We Find That The Common Issue For Our Consideration Is That Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Of Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source U/S 194A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 133ASection 14ASection 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

The Murshidabad District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Murshidabad vs. ACIT(TDS), Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 459 & 460/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Murshidabad District Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, (Tds), Cir-1, Kolkata Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 48 & 49, B.B. Sen Road Berhampore – 742101 (Murshidabad) [Pan : Aabat2105M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 16/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighty Seven (87) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. On Perusal Of The Grounds, We Find That The Common Issue For Our Consideration Is That Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Of Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source U/S 194A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 133ASection 14ASection 194ASection 201(1)Section 250