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

Schil Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1777/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1777/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., The Dcit-4(2)(1), बनाम/ C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Army & Navy Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1669/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit-4(2)(1), M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Army & Navy Bldg., 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5004/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., The Dcit-4(2)(1), बनाम/ C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Army & Navy Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs 5661H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assesee By: Shri F.V. Irani Shri Z. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3705-06/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06&06-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir Acit- Circle-13(3) 13, M.A. Sarang Marg, Dongri Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. Vs Pan: Aadpe 2591 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 03.02.14 Of Cit(A)-24,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising The Identical Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Challenged The Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit-ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 3705/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3705-06/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06&06-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir Acit- Circle-13(3) 13, M.A. Sarang Marg, Dongri Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. Vs Pan: Aadpe 2591 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 03.02.14 Of Cit(A)-24,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising The Identical Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Challenged The Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit-ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Priti R. Jaggi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 791/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 791/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम/ The Acit-25(2), Mrs. Priti R. Jaggi, C-11-Pratyakshakar 1702, Krishna Heritage, Vs. Bhavan, Link Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Don Bosco School, Bandra (E), Borivali (W),Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-4000 051 C.O. No. 229/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 791/M/2012 Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम/ Mrs. Priti R. Jaggi, The Acit-25(2), 1702, Krishna Heritage, C-11-Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Link Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Don Bosco School, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 092[[ Mumbai-4000 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afppj 5440N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Revenue By: Shri K.Ravi Kiran ""यथ" क" ओर से/Assesee By: None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-35, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2011. 2

For Respondent: Shri K.Ravi Kiran
Section 194A(3)Section 194CSection 194HSection 40