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

ACIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Studio Green, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 2427/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2427/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & C.O. No. 99/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2427/Chny/2019] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Studio Green, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Old No. 13, New No. 6, Ii Floor, Investigation Wing, Room No. 311, 6, Thanikachalam Road, No. 46, Mg Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Absfs6433Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri V. Vivek Rajan, C.A. : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 26.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Whether The Second Proviso Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Applies Retrospectively Or Only Prospective From The Date Of 2

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 40

Shri. Dilip Dullabhdas Rajdeo, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25 (2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6652/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6652/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shri Dilip Dullabhdas Rajdeo, The Asst. Commissioner Of D-1203 Ideal Apartments, Income Tax, Circle 20(2), Gulmohar Road, J.V.P.D. Scheme Now Acit 25(2), Income Mumbai-400 049 फनाभ/ Tax Office, Kautilya Bhavan, ‘G; 2N D Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabpr1373C अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri D.C. Jain, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-33/Acit-20(2)/2013-14 Vide Dated 30.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 20(2), Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 22.02.2013 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Shri Dilip Dullabhdas Rajdeo; Ay: 10-11 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Made By Assessing Officer On Payments Made To M/S Pacific Digital For Purchase Of Material Disallowed By The Assessing Officer Treating The Payment To Contractor For Non-Deduction Of Tds Under Section 194C Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(5)Section 40