Section 195 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 195 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 195 is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 of the 2,836 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 195

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT
245 ITR 428 · 2000 · Supreme Court
901
citing judgments

A business liability that has definitely arisen in an accounting year is deductible even if it needs to be quantified and discharged later, as long as its incurring is certain and can be reasonably estimated.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT
255 ITR 273 · 2002 · Supreme Court
657
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115J, arrears of depreciation, including those arising from assets working extra shifts, are a necessary charge on profits if debited to the profit and loss account and are allowable as such.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT
224 ITR 677 · 1997 · Supreme Court
398
citing judgments

Amendments to the Income-tax Act that are curative, clarificatory, or beneficial in nature apply retrospectively from the date the original statutory provision was introduced, even if not explicitly stated.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

Judgments on Section 195

Etain Renewables Limited ( Earlier Known As Etain Immodo Renewable Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 2844/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2844/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Etain Renewables Ltd. Dcit, Cir-2(1)(1), (Earlier Known As Etain Vs. Ahmedabad Immodo Renewable Ltd.) A-1, Skylark, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad- 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Ce6 631 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Ld.Cit In Short] Dated 17/08/2015 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/03/2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 40

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (It-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Globalcom Limited, Bermuda, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5881/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Globalcom Ltd., Income Tax (It)-4 (1)(1), Bermuda C/O. Jitendra Mumbai, Room No.1712, Sanghavi & Co., 17Th Floor, Air India Building, 706A, Moti Mahal Nariman Point, Mumbai – 195J, Tata Road 400 021 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacf4015D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Reliance Globalcom Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax (It)-4 (1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.1712, 17Th Floor, Bermuda C/O. Jitendra Sanghavi & Co., Air India Building, 706A, Moti Mahal Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 195J, Tata Road Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacf4015D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Nishant Samaiya Assessee By Shri Jitendra Sanghavi Date Of Hearing 14/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai M/S. Reliance Globalcom Ltd., Bermuda [Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld Cita], Dated 19/06/2017 For A.Y.2013- 14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act. These Cross Appeals Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)