Section 194I of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194I 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 194I is CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (330 ITR 239), cited in 147 of the 477 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194I

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.

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.

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.

Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UOI
68 Taxmann.com 299 · 2016 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An order under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 can be passed when the TDS statement is required to be filed.

Coforge Limited v. ACIT
436 ITR 546 · 2021 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A one-time payment of lease rent, even if commuted and discounted over a long period like 90 years, is revenue in nature and therefore an allowable business expenditure. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A.

Rajesh Projects (India) (p.) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
78 Taxmann.com 263 · 2017 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee is not liable for TDS default under section 201(1) on payments to NOIDA Authority for lease rents, but the interest liability under section 201(1A) may still apply if the deductee has offered such income. However, the conclusion regarding TDS default applies prospectively.

Ramkrishna Vedanta Math v. ITO
24 Taxmann.com 29 · 2012 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

Interest under section 201(1A) cannot be levied if the recipient of income has already paid the due taxes. The onus is on the revenue to prove that taxes have not been recovered from the primary liable person.

CIT v. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills
118 Taxmann 489 · 2001 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

Interest earned on funds parked in fixed deposits is considered business income if it's intrinsically linked to the assessee's business activities.

CIT v. Shahi Export House
195 Taxmann 163 · 2010 · High Court
23
citing judgments
PCIT v. Paschim GujaratVij Company Ltd.
174 Taxmann.com 748 · 2025 · High Court
17
citing judgments

Interest on staff loans earned by an electricity company is business income, not income from other sources.

Judgments on Section 194I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF), Bangalore

ITA 720/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 194Section 250