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

Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Trust, Perrnamallur, Vandavasi vs. ITO, Vellore

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

ITA 1438/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Vs The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Ward-I(5), No.10, Reddiyar Street, Vellore – 632 001. Thellar Village Post, Tiruvannamalai – 604 406. Pan: Aaets 2748F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1438/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Vs The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Ward-I(5), No.77, Chetpet Road, Vellore – 632 001. Mazhiyur Village, Mazhiyur – 604 502 Vandavasi Taluk. Pan: Aaets 5150R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals By The Assessees Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai In Ita No.125/Cit(A)-13/2009-10 & 126/Cit(A)-13/2009-10, Vide Orders Dated 23.02.2016 & 29.03.2016. The Assessments Were Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(5), Vellore For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Even Dated 26.12.2011 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri K. Venkatesh Prabhu, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 164(1)

Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Trust, Thellar, Tiruvannamalai vs. ITO, Vellore

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

ITA 1437/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Vs The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Ward-I(5), No.10, Reddiyar Street, Vellore – 632 001. Thellar Village Post, Tiruvannamalai – 604 406. Pan: Aaets 2748F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1438/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sarvodaya Mutual Benefit Vs The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Ward-I(5), No.77, Chetpet Road, Vellore – 632 001. Mazhiyur Village, Mazhiyur – 604 502 Vandavasi Taluk. Pan: Aaets 5150R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals By The Assessees Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai In Ita No.125/Cit(A)-13/2009-10 & 126/Cit(A)-13/2009-10, Vide Orders Dated 23.02.2016 & 29.03.2016. The Assessments Were Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(5), Vellore For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Even Dated 26.12.2011 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri K. Venkatesh Prabhu, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 164(1)

Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 335/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Vasavi Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd., No. 108/1, Sri Chakra, The Commissioner Of East Park Road, Income Tax (Tds), Opp. Vasavi Mahal, Bangalore. Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaajv0152C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit (Tds), Bangalore For Ay 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Tds) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Tds) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act With Respect To The Order Passed U/S. 201(1) & 201(1A) On The Ground That They Are Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 18Section 194ASection 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 263