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

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Fino Fintech Foundation, Navi Mumbai

ITA 5951/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5951 & 52/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer(Tds)(Osd)-1(2) Fino Fintech Foundation/M/S. Financial Inclusion Network & Operation Ltd.(Now Room No.812, K.G. Mittal Hospital Known As Fino Paytech Limited) Bldg., Charni Road Tarun Bharat, Plot No.38/39, Sector Vs. Mumbai-400 002. No.30, Near Sanpada Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400 075. Pan:Aabcf 1125 D/Aaacf 9869 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K. Ravi Ramachandran-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2016 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 लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.07.2014 & 18.07.2014 Of Cit(A)-14, Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeals Raising Various Grounds.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Ramachandran-DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 197Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Monish Builder, Mumbai

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

ITA 7068/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Monish Builders, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

ITA 8880/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40