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 WD 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Syed Kamrul Islam, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 948/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1115/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, The Ito 19(3)(2), Room No. 217, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Lalbaug, Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.948/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ The Ito 19(3)(2), Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, Piramal Chambers, Room No. 217, Vs. Lalbaug, Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Mumbai-400 012 Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afzps 3205D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Vipul J. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Department By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :24.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai Dated 04.12.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07. Both These Appeals Are Heard Together & They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 37(1)Section 40

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5974/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5973/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2882/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Syed Kamrul Islam, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1115/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, The Ito 19(3)(2), Room No. 217, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Lalbaug, Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.948/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ The Ito 19(3)(2), Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, Piramal Chambers, Room No. 217, Vs. Lalbaug, Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Mumbai-400 012 Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afzps 3205D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Vipul J. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Department By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :24.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai Dated 04.12.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07. Both These Appeals Are Heard Together & They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 37(1)Section 40