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

M/S Soul Space Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 1084/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2012-13 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Tds), No.409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Circle-51 (1), Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aajcs7736F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates; & Shri Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Of The Cit(A)-41, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Tds Liability Of Rs.2,01,30,477/-. 2. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Appellant Is Liable To Pay Interest Of Rs.48,31,315/- U/S 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Aforesaid Tds Liability Of Rs.2,01,30,477/-. 3. The Appellant Reserves Their Right Without Prejudice To Add, Delete, Alter Modify Or Otherwise Present Any Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 191Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1) ), Raipur vs. Shri Santosh Jain, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 43/RPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.43/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant By None Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2008-09Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 29.09.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact By Adjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Second Proviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoring The Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Not Examine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source & Applicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 263Section 40

The Orgaon Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 242/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.242/Pan/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Orgaon Urban Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Panaji, Operative Credit Society Goa. Limited, Deulwada, Marcela, Goa- 403107. Pan : Aaaat6227D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhu Gawde Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cit(A) Has Not Appreciated Appellants Submission That Though The Appellants Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Of Deduction Under Chapter Via & Low Income & High Loans / Advances / Investments The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Examining Other Issues & Has Wrongly Travelled Beyond His Permitted Ambit In Making The Disallowances U/S. 40(A)(Ia) & Sec. 36(1)(V). 2) The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Interest Earned On Statutory Investments Of Statutory Funds In The Apex Bank(Cooperative

For Appellant: Shri Madhu GawdeFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)