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

Thenmozhi Ganesan, Dindigul vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1628/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Thenmozhi Ganesan, The Principal Commissioner Of 13A, Collectorate, Vs. Income Tax, Indira Nagar, Madurai. Dindigul 624 004. Pan: Adtpt 8145C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1 [‘Pcit’ I Short] Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-5 Grounds Which Are As Under: Ita No.1628 /Chny/2024 ‘’1) The Order Of The Learned Pcit Is Bad & Erroneous In Law. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Submission Filed By The Appellant In Proper Perspective. 3) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Scope & Effect Of The Amendment Made In Section 40(A)(Ia) In Proper Perspective. 4) The Order By The Learned Pcit Directing The Assessing Officer To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order By Disallowing 100 Percent U/S. 40(A)(Ia), Without Cancelling The Earlier Assessment Order, As Mandated By Section 263 Is Bad In Law. 5) Invoking Section 263, When The Issue Of Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia), At The Time Of Passing The Assessment Order Dated 10/03/2022 U/S.148, Was Not Free From Doubt, Is Not Legally Tenable’.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 263Section 40