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 TDS 1(2), Mumbai vs. Fino Fintech Foundation, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year

ITA 4482/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4482/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit (Tds)-1(2), Vs. M/S Fino Fintech Foundation, Room No. 803, Tarun Bharat, Plot No. 38/39, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., Sector No. 30, Charni Road (W), Near Sanpada Railway Station, Mumbai - 400002 Navi Mumbai - 400075 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf1125D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4483/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & It The Dcit (Tds)-1(2), Vs. M/S Fino Paytech Ltd., Room No. 803, Tarun Bharat, Plot No. 38/39, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., Sector No. 30, Charni Road (W), Near Sanpada Railway Station, Mumbai - 400002 Navi Mumbai - 400075 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf9869M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 25

ACIT (TDS), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Artemis Medicare Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly deleted the entire addition. Appeal of assessee was allowed

ITA 6527/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit (Tds) Artemis Medicare Service 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Udyog Vihar, Vs. 414/1, 4Th Floor, Phase-V, Gurgaon. बनाम Dda Commercial Complex District Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafca0130M अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) Department By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2017 O R D E R Per Bhavesh Saini, J.M : 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Has Been Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Gurgaon, Dated 29.09.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Formerly Known As Artemis Medicare Services Pvt. Ltd., Was Incorporated On 18.05.2004. It Is Registered At Delhi Address & Is Engaged In The Business Of Managing & Operating Of Multi Specialty Hospital & Commenced Its Commercial Operations By Setting Up The Artemis Health Institute, Gurgaon. The Hospital Has Been Utilizing Services Of Number Of 2 Doctors Which Were Categorized As “Employee Doctors” & “Medical Consultants”. The Issue In The Present Appeal Relates To Tds Treatment Given By The Assessee In Respect Of The Following Categories Of Doctors As Consultants & The Table Below Contains Details Of The Payments Made During The Respective Years. F.Y. 2009-2010 F.Y.2010-2011 Classification Of Consultants Si. No. (Rs.) (Rs.) Visiting Consultants (Doctors) 24,576.144 21,404,280 1. Doctors On Revenue Share Only 4,221.348 45,736.094 2. 3. 148.548.444 110,500,340 Doctors On Revenue Share With Minimum Guarantee 4. 65.062.933 79.428.472 Senior Doctors On Minimum Guarantee Consultancy Fees 5. 52,473,845 72,698,048 Junior Doctors On Minimum Guarantee Consultancy Fees Total 294,882,714 329,767,234 ■

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Vodafone Spacetal Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.307/CTK/2014, ITA No

ITA 4/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.03, 04, 307 & 308/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vodafone Spacetel Limited, Vs. Acit (Tds), Unit-41, E-52, Infocity, Bhubaneswar Chandrasekharpur, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2207 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-I, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issues Are Common In All The Appeals, Therefore, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.307/Ctk/2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Facts Narrated Therein. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication Services In Various Parts Of India. There Was Survey Operation U/S.133A Of The Act In The Premises Of The Assessee On 29.9.2011 & Revenue Found Violation Of Provisions Of Tds & Ita Nos.307 & 308/14 In Non-Deducting Tds In Respect Of Payments Dealt In The Financial Year

For Appellant: Shri Sparsh Bhargava, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194HSection 194J