Section 194I

Section 194I — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 194I, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• CIT (TDS)-2 v Santur Builders Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO says our EDC paid to HUDA was 'rent' and has raised a s.201 demand for not deducting under s.194-I. Is that right?
  No. External Development Charges paid to the Haryana authority are not rent, so s.194-I is not attracted and a s.201(1)/201(1A) order built on s.194-I cannot stand. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding the point squarely covered by its own earlier decision in DLF Homes Panchkula. It also refused to let the Revenue rescue the order by switching to s.194C at the appeal stage, because s.194C was never the case the AO made.
• Puri Constructions Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I paid External Development Charges to HUDA/HSVP because the Town and Country Planning Department told me to. I have no contract with HUDA. Does s.194C still oblige me to deduct tax at source?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court rejected the developers' challenge and held that EDC payments fall within s.194C. The privity argument does not work: s.194C looks for a contract under which the contractor carries out work, not for a contract between the payer and the payee. Nor does s.196 rescue the developer, because HSVP is a legal entity distinct from the Government of Haryana. This is a different question from the one decided in DLF Homes Panchkula, which held EDC is not 'rent' under s.194-I. The two decisions sit side by side and do not conflict.
• DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd v JCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Are External Development Charges paid to HUDA 'rent' under s.194-I? And if the AO picked the wrong section, can the department switch sections on appeal?
  EDC paid to the Haryana authority under the statutory licensing scheme is not rent, so s.194-I is not attracted. The Revenue did not even try to defend the Assessing Officer's reasoning; it asked instead for a remand so the officer could apply s.194C. The Court refused. An order under s.201 stands or falls on the reasoning the officer actually gave, and the reasoning here was fundamentally flawed. The s.201(1) and 201(1A) demands were set aside.
• PCIT v Asian Mills P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I paid freight without TDS after taking the transporters' PANs. Can the AO still disallow the freight?
  No. The exclusion from the duty to deduct in s.194C(6) is complete the moment its substantive conditions are met, and from that point the payer has no authority to deduct at all; the obligation under s.194C(7) to furnish particulars arises at a much later point and its breach cannot revive a deduction obligation that never existed. Since s.40(a)(ia) operates only where tax was deductible and was not deducted, it had nothing to work on. On the facts the Tribunal had found that no prescribed authority stood nominated to receive the particulars, so filing them with Form 26Q was sufficient compliance. Two other issues went the same way: discounts to customers who took delivery into their own godowns were not rent under s.194-I, and depreciation on cars registered in directors' names but paid for and used by the company was allowed on beneficial ownership.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.