TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,1961- Amendment, Articles, News Notifications, Judgments and Detailed Analysis at one place
Income Tax : Taxpayers are advised to wait until departmental records are fully updated before filing AY 2026-27 returns. Filing too early may ...
Income Tax : A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling...
Income Tax : The amendment explicitly includes manpower supply services under contractual provisions, making 1–2% TDS applicable instead of 1...
Income Tax : Learn when and how TDS applies to payments for contractual work, including rates, thresholds, exemptions, and recent amendments....
Income Tax : Delhi High Court rules CAM charges are contractual payments under Section 194C, not rent under Section 194I, clarifying TDS obliga...
Income Tax : From October 2024, payments under Section 194J (professional fees) will be excluded from TDS under Section 194C (payments to contr...
Income Tax : Section 194C(6) provides exemption to small good carriage contractor/transporter (owning not more than 10 goods carriage at any ti...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has sought a reply from Samsung India Electronics on the I-T department plea that the firm is liable to deduct ...
Income Tax : The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) expanded the scope of professional services to cover sportspersons, umpires and referees,...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to exempt income and deleted additions relating to bad debts, tea and coffee ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that payments made for Google AdWords constitute advertising contracts under Section 194C and not fees for...
Income Tax : The dispute concerned deduction of CSR expenditure incurred before Explanation 2 to section 37(1) became applicable. The ITAT held...
Income Tax : Expenditure of ₹4.49 crore incurred on maintenance dredging for removal of natural siltation and restoration of the existing ope...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that repeated non-compliance with statutory notices transformed the reassessment into a best judgment assessme...
Income Tax : Law Related to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments by television channels and publishing houses to advertisement companies f...
Income Tax : Law Relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments by broadcasters or television channels to production houses for product...
Income Tax : Circular No. 9/2012 Representations have been received from various sections of the Industry on the difficulties faced in the matt...
Income Tax : CIRCULAR NO. 1/2008-Income Tax Representations have been received from various quarters regarding applicability of the provisions ...
Income Tax : Circular No. 715-Income Tax Clarifications on various provisions relating to tax deduction at source regarding changes introduced...
Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) -Whether CIT(A) has erred in confirming the dis-allowance of Rs. 7,93,34,193/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has filed Form No. 15J with CIT on 26.02.2009 instead of on or before 30th June, 2006 in as much the there is no failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C since the assessee has received Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors before making payment to them. Held , No The decision on deductibility of tax on payment made to sub-contractor is to be taken at time when contractor is releasing payments to sub-contractors and it is at that point of time second proviso to section 194C(3)(i) would come into play and when Form No. 15-I are submitted by sub-contractors to contractor, then contractor is not required to deduct tax from such payments, whereas compliance of third proviso can be deferred till 30th June of next financial year.
ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court of India)- However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
Shri Prashant H Shah Vs ACIT (Ahmedabad ITAT)- It is further important to mention that vide an amendment with effect from 1/6/2007 an individual or HUF have also been inducted vide sub-clause (k) in section 194C(1) of the IT Act. At this juncture, it is worth to hold that as far as the AY in hand is concerned, i.e. AY 2007-08, this latest amendment of section 194C(1)(k) of the Act being introduced with effect from 01/06/2007 has no applicability.
Dy. CIT v Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Since the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that there was no oral or written contract with the assessee and the Roopal Roadways which is confirmed by the clarificatory certificate issued by Roopal Roadways, was not disputed by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that provision of section 194C(3) of the Act are not applicable in this case and consequently no addition u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made.
ACIT Vs M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – A perusal of the terms and conditions as also the invoices as found in the paper book clearly shows that sales tax and excise duty had been collected on the supply of materials by the vendors to the assessee. In these circumstances, in view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. in S.L.P. No. 18012/2009 dated 17-08-2010, referred to supra, we are of the view that the transaction involved in the present case is a contract for sale and not a contract for carrying out any works.
S. 194C defines work to include carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways while s. 194-I defines rent to mean payment for use of plan (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the contractor and all expenditure was borne by the contractor, the contract was for carriage of passengers for which the assessee paid a fixed amount. Therefore, the payment of vehicle hire charges fell within the scope of s. 194C and was not rent for s. 194-I.
There is no material on record brought by the AO to prove that there was any written or oral agreement between the assessee and the transporter for carriage of goods. There is no material to establish that any payment exceeded the prescribed limits during the financial year. As per the decision of the HC in case of United Rice Mill Ltd (322 ITR 594) laid down that Section 194C cannot be invoked to hold the assessee liable for deduction of tax only on the assumption that assessee was having agreement with the parties through whom transportation of goods was carried out.
ACIT (TDS) vs Accenture Services P Ltd. – The provisions of section 194C shall apply to all types of contracts for carrying out work including transport contract, service contract etc. Transport contract would also include contract for loading and unloading of goods and also cover contracts for plying buses along with the staff
The assessee, hired Millers and Rollers, for the purpose of carrying out his road contract works. According to the revenue, since in the case on hand, the hire charges in respect of both the Millers and Rollers hired by the assessee contained a portion of labour charges incurred by the respective owners of the concerned vehicles/machineries towards operation of the respective vehicles/machineries along with labour and consequently, the relevant provision applicable for effecting TDS was section 194C and not 194-I of the Income Tax Act.
CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessed to show that there existed reasonable cause which was the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision. Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the Explanationn offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause. “Reasonable cause” as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences will follow.
