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

Mohammed Salim Yusuf, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7208/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Mahavir Singh,Jm & B.R. Baskaran,Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No./7208/Mum/2012,िन िन िनधा"रण िन धा"रण धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 वष" Mohammed Salim Yusuf Dcit-15(3) Flat No.14, 1St Floor, Isak Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan:Aakpy 9942 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: None Assessee By: S. Ravichandran-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:30.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S 254(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(The Act) O R D E R "याियक सद"य के अनुसार Per Mahavir Singh,Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-26, In Appeal No.Cit(A)-26/It-17/Dcit.15(3)/2010-11 Order Dated 04.09.2012. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit-Circle-15(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Vide His Order Dated 10.12.2009. The Penalty Under Dispute Was Levied By Dcit, Circle-15(3), Mumbai, U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide His Order Dated 20.05.2010. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Addition Of Cash Credits & Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1.The Ld.Ao Erred In Levying Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C ) For Disallowance Of Cash Credit Of Rs.2,86,500/- & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. The Ld.Ao Erred In Levying Penalty For Disallowance U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs.75,000/- & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same.”

For Appellant: S. Ravichandran-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40