Section 194H of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194H 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 194H is CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681), cited in 165 of the 1,314 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194H

CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.
33 ITR 681 · 1958 · High Court
165
citing judgments

An addition to income is revenue neutral if its tax impact remains the same regardless of the year in which it is assessed. Assessments should not dispute the year of addition when the tax rate and impact are consistent, to avoid unnecessary disputes and potential loss to revenue.

CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.
325 ITR 148 · 2010 · High Court
155
citing judgments

Discounts offered to distributors under a tightly controlled relationship constitute commission and are subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.
330 ITR 239 · 2011 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that for a service to qualify as 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12 of a DTAA, direct human involvement or intervention in rendering the service is essential. This principle applies to telecommunication services like interconnect charges and roaming charges, and also to services related to software use.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT
372 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
139
citing judgments

Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable on the discount extended to distributors of pre-paid services, as the distributor does not earn income at the time of purchasing pre-paid cards from the assessee. The assessee is not in possession of any income belonging to the distributor at that point.

Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT
136 ITD 23 · 2012 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenses that remain payable at the end of the financial year, not to expenses that have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of tax at source.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.
305 ITR 409 · 2008 · Supreme Court
118
citing judgments

For computing book profits under Section 115JB, an Assessing Officer's power is limited to examining duly certified books and making adjustments only as per the Explanation. A provision for bad and doubtful debts, being a diminution in the value of an asset (receivable), does not constitute a 'provision for liability' under Clause (c) of the Explanation and therefore cannot be added back.

Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT
232 ITR 359 · 1998 · Supreme Court
99
citing judgments

Expenditure on technical aid fees for factory setup and rights to sell products under a collaboration agreement is capital in nature, not revenue, as it provides an enduring benefit.

Hindustan Coca Cola v. CIT
402 ITR 539 · 2018 · High Court
73
citing judgments

Discounts allowed by a business to grow its operations in a competitive market are acceptable and cannot be disallowed. Expenses incurred for business growth in a competitive world are not to be disallowed.

Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI
248 ITR 292 · 2001 · High Court
65
citing judgments

An assessment order is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, warranting revision under Section 263, if there is an inadequate inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, satisfying the two cumulative conditions required for revisional powers.

Judgments on Section 194H

Mr. Palanisamy Senthilkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1601/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1601/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2018-2019 Shri. Palanisamy Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 73/1, Selvakumar Rice Mill, Vs. Ward 2(1) Mangalam Road, Tirupur 641 601. Andipalayam, Tirupur 641 687. [Pan: Bwups 6975B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. J. Vamini, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024. घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054384098 (1) Dated 15.07.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2 Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Vide Order Dated 03.04.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regard To Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income (Appeals) (In Short ‘’Ld. Cit(A)’’) Sustaining/ Restricting The Addition At Rs.73,99,559/- As Against Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer At Rs.2,42,58,153/- In Regard To Disallowance Of Expenditure Being Payment Of Commission & Brokerage Made To Contractors U/S.69C Of The Act Being Unexplained Expenditure.

For Appellant: Ms. J. Vamini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 44BSection 68Section 69C

Mahendra Ravindra Salunkhe, Panvel City vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3204/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymahendra Ravindra Vs. Income Tax Officer Salunkhe, A-202, 35(2)(3) Swarganaga Chs Ltd, Plot Kautilya Bhavan No.62, Sector 18, Bkc, 400050 Kamothe, Panvel City, Mumbai Raigarh- 410209 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bkfps6678L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Appeal The Assessee Had Stated That He Had The Total Income Of Rs.2,26,652. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Had Given The Assessee An Opportunity To Hear, Firstly In The Year Of 2021 However Due To Second Wave Of Covid 19 He Was Not Able To Attend The Same As During The Concerned Period Survival Was The Only Challenge. Later, The Concerned Assessee In The Year 2023 Was Diagnosed With Medical Illness Which Impaired His Physical Inability & Mental Stability To Attend The Hearings. The Order Was Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals By Passing An Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11/07/2023. The Notices Received From The Cit Appeals Did Not Contain Any Specific Information To Be Submitted Due To Which The Assessee Was Under The Presumption That They Will Ask Additional Questions In The Next Notice. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete The Said Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker
Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43(5)