Which cases are most cited on Section 194Q?

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. (328 ITR 448) — 35 citing judgments; Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai (5 SCC 590) — 35 citing judgments; Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. CIT (3 SCC 538) — 16 citing judgments; Naresh Bhavani Shah (HUF) v. CIT (84 Taxmann.com 53) — 13 citing judgments; Jonnalla Narashimharao and Co. and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (200 ITR 588) — 3 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 194Q?

BharatTax indexes 123 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 194Q of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 194Q of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 194Q of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. (328 ITR 448) is the decision most relied on for Section 194Q, cited in 35 judgments. Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194Q 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 194Q is CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. (328 ITR 448), cited in 35 of the 123 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194Q

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

328 ITR 448 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

5 SCC 590 · 1999 · Reported

citing judgments

Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. CIT

3 SCC 538 · 1986 · Reported

citing judgments

For the purpose of Section 80-M, deductions are to be allowed on gross total income and not on net income. This interpretation was later overruled by the Supreme Court.

Naresh Bhavani Shah (HUF) v. CIT

84 Taxmann.com 53 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) can be given to a person other than the deductee if certain conditions are met, including the filing of a declaration as prescribed by Rule 37BA(2).

Jonnalla Narashimharao and Co. and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

200 ITR 588 · 1993 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 194Q

Ashraya Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2372/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year:2023-24 M/S. Ashraya Constructions No. 908D, Ideal Homes The Deputy Commissioner Township, 19Th Cross, 19Th Main, Of Income Tax Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Circle 5(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560098 Bangalore Pan – Aazfa5442R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri. B. Venugopal - Advocate

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 194Q

ACIT22(1), Mumbai vs. Unique Bangles, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7427/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur vs. Yuvraj Patil and Company, Talsangi

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

ITA 2803/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24 Acit, Circle – 1, Yuvraj Patil & Company Solapur Vs. Talsangi, Mangalwedha, Solapur – 413305 Pan: Aaafy4589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Q

Mr. Babu Ganga, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3883/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Ms. R ANITHA, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 17.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Q

Krishan Batra, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward 1, Ayakar Bhawan Sirsa Road

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 1546/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1546/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Krishan Batra Ito Ward 1 114A, Anaj Mandi, Fatehbad बनाम/ Vs. Manju Complex Haryana - 125050 Fatehabad – 125 050 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpb-9656-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023- 24 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore Dated 26-09-2025 In The Matter Of A Rectification Intimation As Issued By Cpc U/S 154 On 21-06-2024. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Denial Of Tax Credit For Rs.69,012/-. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Goyal (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194A