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-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Liver Foundation, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 459/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Income Tax Officer, M/S Liver Foundation, बनाम Ward-2(2)/Tds/Kolkata, 12, Dr. M. Ishaque / V/S. 10B, Middleton Row, 7Th Road, (Kyd Street), Floor, Kolkata-71 Kolkata-16 [Pan Callo 23274 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhttacharjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-11-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Kolkata Dated 30.12.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-58(3)/Tds, Kolkata U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2009 For Assessment Year 2009-10. Penalty Levied By Jcit(Tds), Range-58, Kolkata U/S 271C Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. So We Decided To Hear The Present Appeal Without Appearance Of Assessee Or By Ld. Authorized Representative For The Assessee & After Hearing Ld. Dr. 3. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is That Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed By The Ao For Rs. 26,52,615.00 U/S 271C Of The Act

Section 115Section 194BSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Simplex Projects Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Dcit, Cicle-12(2) V/S. M/S Simplex Projects Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 12/1, Nelli Sengupta 6Th Floor, Chowringhee Sarani, Kolkaata-700087 Square, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aadcs 8598 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08-11-2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 20.11.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-12(2), Kolkata U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 27.12.2010 For Assessment Year 2005-06. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue & Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred By Treating The Order Of The Ao As Ultra Vires & Annulling The Order Of The Ao By Overlooking The Fact That Assessee Failed To File Any Objection To The Issuance Of Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Within The Stipulated Time As Per The Provisions Of The Ct Despite Availing Ample Opportunity By Issuing Notices.

Section 144Section 148Section 194CSection 80Section 80I

M/S M. K. Gupta & Co., Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1316/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1316/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. M.K. Gupta & Co..............................………………………………………………….Appellant Metro Heights, 2Nd Floor, Behind Nissan Showroom 2.5 Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, West Bengal – 734 001 [Pan : Aaefm5024A] D.C.I.T., Cir 2………………………………………………................................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Parivahan Nagar, Matighara, Siliguri, Darjeeling - 734010 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 08, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) Siliguri Dated 22.09.2015 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: 1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 6,27,881/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Payment Made To M/S. Topline By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) R.W. Section 194A Of The Act. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 45,886/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Fees Paid For Acquiring Digital Certificate By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) R.W. Sec. 194J Of The Act.

Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40