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

Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

ITA 224/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes for both the assessment years

ITA 223/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

Venkayamma Gunji, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 662/VIZ/2019[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.661/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Adiseshu Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aehpg5014K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.662/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Venkayamma Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aetpg1987Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Shri Suseel Kumar Agarwal, Ar अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellants By : प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)],Hyderabad-10 In 2

For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

Adiseshu Gunji, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 661/VIZ/2019[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.661/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Adiseshu Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aehpg5014K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.662/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Venkayamma Gunji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.53-92-08, Chaitanya Nagar (International Taxation) Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aetpg1987Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Shri Suseel Kumar Agarwal, Ar अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellants By : प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)],Hyderabad-10 In 2

For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)