Section 194J of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194J 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 194J is CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (383 ITR 1), cited in 203 of the 1,434 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194J

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
383 ITR 1 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) can include payments for fully automated services even without direct human interface, as modern technological developments blur the specific human element in such processes.

254 ITR 121 (Guj) ITO v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
243 ITR 435 · 2000 · High Court
173
citing judgments
CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.
319 ITR 139 · 2009 · High Court
167
citing judgments

Technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 require human intervention at the time of service delivery. Consequently, payments for telecom services like roaming, mobile data, connectivity, or interconnect/port access do not constitute 'fees for technical services' and are not liable for TDS under Section 194J.

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
340 ITR 333 · 2012 · High Court
161
citing judgments

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

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.

East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT
224 ITR 627 · 1997 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Where an assessee has mixed funds (both interest-bearing and interest-free funds) and makes an interest-free advance or investment, it is presumed that the interest-free funds were utilized first if they are sufficient to cover such advances or investments. This prevents disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under Section 36(1)(iii).

CIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd.
392 ITR 186 · 2017 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

For a payment to qualify as "fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, direct human intervention in rendering the service is essential. Payments for automated software systems, online platforms, or database access without human involvement in delivering the service are not considered fees for technical services.

CIT v. IBM India Ltd.
357 ITR 88 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Expenditure on application software, which enhances business efficiency and requires a computer system to function, constitutes revenue expenditure rather than acquisition of a capital asset, even if it provides an enduring benefit.

Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors.
4 SCC 516 · 2021 · Reported
87
citing judgments

Reasons constitute the soul of any judicial or quasi-judicial decision. Assessing Officers, including the CPC, must pass reasoned orders and not act arbitrarily or summarily when issuing intimations under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act.

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 194J

DCIT, Chennai vs. Kavithtalaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1287/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1287/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kavithalaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Media Circle 1, Vs. No. 34, Warren Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai – 4. [Pan: Aaack2996E] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vi, Chennai Dated 28.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised Two Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act” In Short] On The Sum Of ₹.3 Crores On The Ground That The Said Sum Was Directly Paid By M/S. Pyramid Saimira Entertainment Ltd. To M/S. Seven Arts Film & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That ₹.75 Lakhs Repaid To M/S. Pyramid Saimira

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 29Section 30Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. A.C. Neilson Org P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5496/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sandeep Gosaind C I T - 14(2)(2) M/S. A.C. Neilson Org P. Ltd. Room No. 404, 4Th Floor 6Th Floor, Block-C, Godraj It Park Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Phirojshah Nagar, Lbs Marg, M.K. Road Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400007 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacm9279L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Respondent By: Shri Madhur Agrawal Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai Dated 22.09.2015 & It Pertains To A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Market Research, Media Research & Consultancy Services. The Original Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") On 15.12.2006 Determining The Total Income At `9,08,40,124/- Against The Returned Income Of `8,55,87,325/- By Making Additions/Disallowances On Account Of Bad Debts Written Off, Contribution To Pf, Pc Upgradation Charges & Computer Software Expenses. Subsequently The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Dated 24.02.2009. Subsequently, Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 23.08.2010 & After Considering The Reply Of The Assessee, Order

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary ArunFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agrawal
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 40Section 43B