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

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5974/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5973/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

DCIT (TDS) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2882/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.2882/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai-400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5974&5973/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Larsen & Toubro Vs. Dcit(Tds)-2(1), Mumbai Infotech Ltd., Gage No.2, South Block, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai- 400072 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl 1681 P याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Vinita Menon ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) Of I.T.Act, 1961. 2. As The Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. 3. The Grievance Of The Revenue In Its Appeal I.E

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3137/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.3137/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-4(1) M/S. Hdfc Securities Limited Room No.640, 6Th Floor Office Floor 8, Alpha Bldg.-B, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. I Techno Think Campus, Mumbai-400 020. Kanjur Marg, Mumbai-400 042. Pan:Aaach 8215 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3502/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Hdfc Securities Limited Dcit-4(1) Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri B.D. Naik-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ खंडपीठ केकेकेके अनुसार खंडपीठ खंडपीठ अनुसार अनुसार Per Bench, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 06.02.2014 Of Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking & Share Trading,Filed Its Return Of Income On 13.10. 2011, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 124.66 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment, U/S 143(3) Of The Act,On 23.02.2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.127.91 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Naik-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 254(1)Section 40

Schil Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1777/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1777/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., The Dcit-4(2)(1), बनाम/ C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Army & Navy Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1669/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit-4(2)(1), M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Army & Navy Bldg., 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5004/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shcil Services Ltd., The Dcit-4(2)(1), बनाम/ C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Army & Navy Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs 5661H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assesee By: Shri F.V. Irani Shri Z. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)