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 Barnala Steel Industries Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 341/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Barnala Steel Industries Ltd., Vs Jcit, Village Vehlana, Range-2, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar. Pan: Aabcb2772Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd November, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-Muzaffarnagar, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Addition Of Rs.3,52,799/- Made By The Ao U/S 40A(3) Of The It Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Ms Bar & Tmt. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 13Th October, 2010 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,48,33,980/- & An Amount Of Rs.2,22,85,162/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Various Details Filed By The Assessee That The Assessee Has Violated The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act For The Purchases From The Above Parties:- Date Of Payment Name Of Supplier Amount 03.11.2009 Mishra Coal Traders 76107/- 05.11.2009 Khan Coal Traders 92950/- 10.11.2009 Khan Coal Traders 91182/- 10.11.2009 Vikas Distributors 92560/-

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 194ASection 201Section 40Section 40A(3)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 454/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 453/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Circle-1(1) Urban Bank Ltd Visakhapatnam D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No. 146/Viz/2019 & 147/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.453/Viz/2019 & 454/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd Income Tax D.No.49-9-14, Dwaraka Nagar Circle-1(1) Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40