Section 194C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194C 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 194C is Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (293 ITR 226), cited in 576 of the 2,696 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194C

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT
224 ITR 677 · 1997 · Supreme Court
398
citing judgments

Amendments to the Income-tax Act that are curative, clarificatory, or beneficial in nature apply retrospectively from the date the original statutory provision was introduced, even if not explicitly stated.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5
288 ITR 322 · 2007 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

Goodyear v. State of Haryana
188 ITR 402 · 1991 · Supreme Court
94
citing judgments

A reasonable construction of a taxing statute should be followed, and a literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest purpose and object of the Act.

Maruti Udyog v. DCIT
92 ITD 119 · 2005 · ITAT
87
citing judgments

The onus is on the revenue to establish the nexus between expenses incurred and exempt income before making a disallowance under section 14A.

CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.
357 ITR 642 · 2013 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies only when an amount is payable (accrued) and not when the amount has already been disbursed or paid.

Carborandum Co. v. CIT
108 ITR 335 · 1977 · Supreme Court
87
citing judgments
Sodex SVC India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) 2(2)
92 Taxmann.com 260 · 2018 · ITAT
86
citing judgments

A statutory provision is not construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction is explicitly stated in the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication.

Judgments on Section 194C

Muchhala Magic Land P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 7605/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7605/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" M/S. Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. Ltd. Jcit-(Osd) C/O., D.C. Jain & Co. Range-8(2), Room No.209, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 293-Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 101. Pan:Aabcm 1017 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri I.C. Jain सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 09/10/2012 Of The Cit (A)-17,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Running Amusement Park,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2009,Declaring Income Of Rs. 1,21,31,886/-.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3),On 22.12.2011,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 1,54,07,290/-.

For Appellant: Shri I.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Emirates, Mumbai

ITA 6397/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/6397/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12 वष" Dcit (Osd) Tds-1(2), Room No.812, M/S. Emirates, Mittal Chambers, 228, K.G. Mittal, Hospital Bldg. Nariman Point, Ground Floor Vs. Charni Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaace 1237 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप ""या"ेप/C.O/63/Mum/2016,Ay.2011-12 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप M/S. Emirates, Nariman Point Vs. Dcit (Osd) Tds-1(2), Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. (Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Sh.Vishwas Mundhe - Dr Assessee By: Sh.Aliasger Rampurwala- Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद",राजे" के अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 01/08/2014,Of The Cit(A)-14,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Appeal/Cross Objections(Co) For The Above-Mentioned Three Ay.S,Raising Various Grounds.As The Issues Involved In The Appeal/ Co.S.Are Common,So,For The Sake Of Convenience,We Are Adjudicating Both The Matters By A Single Order.Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Aircraft & Other Related Activities.

For Appellant: Sh.Aliasger Rampurwala- ARFor Respondent: Sh.Vishwas Mundhe - DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)