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

Bhim Charan Das, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 27(1), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 709/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bhim Charan Das…………...….……………………………………..……..………………………………Appellant C/O New Bargabhima Transport Basudevpur (Hazra More) P.O. Khanjanchak Purba-Mednipur – 721 602 [Pan : Ajdpd 4999 B] Income Tax Office, Ward-27(1), Haldia….……..……………………………………….…….Respondent Dubey House Basudevpur Khanjanchak Purba Mednipur – 721 602 Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailensamaddar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 24Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakarreddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts:- This Is The Second Round Of Appellate Proceedings. The Tribunal In Ita No. 1887/Kol/2012, In The Assessee’S Own Case For The Very Same Assessment Year Vide Order Dt. 27/02/2015, In The Revenue Appeal At Para 5 Held As Follows:- “4. We Have Heard Ld. Dr & Gone Through Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. We Find That The Entire Premise Of The Cit(A) For Deleting The Disallowance Is That There Is No Contract & Individual Or (Which Is Meant For Hiring Of Truck) Is To Be Taken For The Purpose Of Deduction Of Tds U/ S. 194C Of The Act. Accordingly, He Held That There Is No Contract Exists. But We Have Gone Through The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Act, Which Has Specifically Provided In Sub-Section (5) The Limits & The Relevant Sub-Section (5) Of Section 194C Of The Act Reads As Under:

Section 194CSection 250

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 3885/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 20(1), Vs. M/S Puri Oil Mills Ltd., Room No. 219, 2Nd Floor, 302, Jyoti Shikhar, C.R. Building, 8, District Centre Janakpuri I.P. Estate, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 058 (Pan:Aaacp3653M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Sarjiwan Kumar, Manager A/Cs. Order Per H.S. Sidhu, Jm The Department Has Filed This Appeal Which Is Emanate From The Order Dated 02.3.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Raised In The Revenue’S Appeal Read As Under:- 1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Vat Incentive Of Rs. 26,93,562/- Claimed By The Assessee For Computation Of Deduction U/S. 80Ic, Moreso In View Of The Fact That In Ay 2007- 08, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Action Of The Ao In Its Own Case Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 26,246/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Was Required To Deduct Tax U/S. 194C Of The I.T. Act, On The Payment To The Pest Control Contractor. 3. The Appellate Craves To Be Allowed To Add Any Fresh Ground Of Appeal & / Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Sarjiwan Kumar, Manager A/csFor Respondent: Sh. V.K. Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 80I