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

M/S Pappu Garments, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-28(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 259/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.259/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Pappu Garments, Vs. Ito Ward-28(4), Kolkata, 2 62/1, Tollygunge Circular, Gariahat Road, (South), Kolkata-700053 Kolkata-700068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfp 9974 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Malay Dhar & Sankha Sadhu, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Banibrata Dutta, Adcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Kolkata In Appeal No.180/Cit(A)-Xiv/2012-13, Dated 31.10.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 06.12.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 19.08.2010 Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,75,880/-. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition Of Rs.28,73,299/- On Account Of Stitching Charges. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Did Not Deduct The Tds U/S.194C(1) Of The Act While Making Payment To The Contractors/Sub-Contractors, Therefore, The Addition Was Made.

For Appellant: Shri Malay DharFor Respondent: Shri Banibrata Dutta, ADCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C(1)Section 40