Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194IA 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 194IA is Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India (63 Taxmann.com 243), cited in 397 of the 147 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194IA

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India
63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court
397
citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School v. Union of India and Others
392 ITR 457 · 2017 · High Court
217
citing judgments
137 (Guj.) IV. Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
115 Taxmann.com 345 · 2020 · High Court
178
citing judgments

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the levy of fees under Section 234E and penalties under Section 271H, finding the charging provision to be Section 234E, with the power to levy existing from 01/07/2012.

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT
23 Taxmann.com 265 · 2012 · High Court
147
citing judgments

The rule of consistency does not override the correct application of law and should not be applied if it leads to an anomalous outcome.

Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT
161 ITD 313 · 2016 · ITAT
143
citing judgments

Fee under section 234E cannot be charged for the period prior to 01.06.2015, as the power to charge such fee was vested with the prescribed authority only upon substitution of clause (c) to section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from that date.

Rohitasava Chand v. CIT
306 ITR 242 · 2008 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Receipt of a non-compete fee, even if it does not alter the assessee's business structure, impairs the carrying on of their activity, constituting a loss of a source of income.

Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal v. Union of India
62 Taxmann.com 310 · 2015 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which levies a fee for delayed filing of TDS statements, is intra vires the Constitution. However, this fee cannot be levied for statements filed prior to June 1, 2015.

Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT
116 ITD 301 · 2009 · ITAT
46
citing judgments

The case is cited for its relevance to provisions concerning Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS), particularly in relation to amendments introduced by the Finance Bill, 2012, including Section 234E.

(i) Rajesh Kourani v. UOI
103 Taxmann.com 290 · 2019 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The case is cited for the proposition that orders imposing late fees under Section 234E and demand notices under Section 200A are to be considered in light of the prevailing legal position, particularly when the period under consideration includes dates prior to June 1, 2015.

Arunachalam v. CIT
227 ITR 222 · 1997 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee to discharge a mortgage created by a previous owner is an allowable deduction in computing capital gains, as it represents the cost of acquisition or perfecting an imperfect title. The assessee's payment to clear the encumbrance is not deductible for capital gains computation.

Judgments on Section 194IA

Ghalot Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3576/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, A.M. & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3576/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Pr. Cit-28, 3Rd Floor, Gahlot Construction 6Th Tower, Vashi Railways Station G-Square Business Park, बनाम/ Plot No. 25/26, Sector-30, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofm 5698 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Shri Bharatkumar Darshan B. Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Patankar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-28, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 30.03.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. The Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 194Section 194ISection 263

Ghalot Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3574/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, A.M. & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3574/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pr. Cit-28, 3Rd Floor, Gahlot Construction 6Th Tower, Vashi Railways Station G-Square Business Park, बनाम/ Plot No. 25/26, Sector-30, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofm 5698 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Bharatkumar Darshan B. Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Patankar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax -28, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 30.03.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. The Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 194ISection 263