Section 393 (Act of 2025)

Section 393 (Act of 2025) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 393 (Act of 2025), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Director, Prasar Bharati v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  My advertising agency bills the advertiser, remits the money to me, and I pay it fifteen per cent back as its margin. The agreement calls it commission. Is that section 194H?
  Yes, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that the fifteen per cent paid to accredited advertising agencies under Doordarshan's agreements was commission within section 194H, so tax had to be deducted on it. What decided the case was the arrangement, not the label on the ledger: the agreement called the sum commission throughout, it was paid over after the appellant had collected the money from the agencies, and the relationship was one of principal and agent rather than principal to principal. Read it against Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors and Bharti Cellular, where the same section did not apply because the distributor bought on its own account.
• Pr. CIT (TDS) v National Health and Education Society — hospital consultants' fees fall under s.194J, not s.192 High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The TDS officer says our consultant doctors are really employees, that their fees are salary, and that we should have deducted under s.192 instead of s.194J. Is he right?
  Not on these facts. The hospital engaged Hospital Based Consultants and deducted under s.194J. The Assessing Officer held they were employees, that s.192 applied, and passed orders under s.201 treating the hospital as in default; the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal went against him on that point and the Revenue appealed under s.260A. The Bombay High Court held the question squarely covered by its own earlier Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Pune v Grant Medical Foundation (Ruby Hall Clinic), where the same Court had held that no relationship of employer and employee existed between a hospital and its consultant doctors and had answered the question in favour of the assessee. No substantial question of law arose, and all six appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. Questions on s.194C versus s.194J for outsourced services and on drug handling charges were held to turn on findings of fact, and a question on the time limit for orders under s.201(1) was left open as academic.
• East India Hotels Ltd v CBDT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  We book rooms and banquet facilities for staff and clients and the hotel bills us monthly. Is that a contract for work on which we have to deduct under section 194C?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that the facilities and amenities a hotel makes available to its customers are not "work" within section 194C, and quashed Circular No. 681 of 8 March 1994 to the extent it said that section 194C applied to payments made by customers to the hotel for availing them. The Court read "carrying out any work" as limited to work which, on being carried out, culminates in a product or result — constructing a building or a dam, laying a road or a railway line, erecting or installing plant. Paying a hotel bill is not that.
• Statutory position — s.194H: two per cent on commission or brokerage paid to a resident since 1 October 2024, on a threshold that became twenty thousand rupees on 1 April 2025 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I pay my selling agents a percentage on every order they bring in, and I give my distributors a discount off the list price. Do I deduct under section 194H, at what rate, and from what figure does the obligation start?
  Section 194H makes a payer who is not an individual or a Hindu undivided family deduct tax on any income by way of commission or brokerage paid to a resident, at two per cent. It was five per cent until 30 September 2024 and was substituted by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024, so anything still applying five per cent to a later payment is applying a superseded rate. The threshold is an annual aggregate, not a monthly one: no deduction is required where the amount, or the aggregate of the amounts, credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to that payee during the financial year does not exceed twenty thousand rupees, a figure substituted for fifteen thousand rupees by Act No. 7 of 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025 — and it stayed an annual aggregate on the very date section 194-I's rent threshold became a monthly one, so a payer who runs both rent and commission now applies two different kinds of test. Insurance commission is expressly outside the section and belongs to section 194D, and services rendered that are "professional services" are excluded from the definition and belong to section 194J; the section is also not divided into sub-sections, being printed as one unnumbered operative paragraph, three provisos and an Explanation in four clauses. All of this is the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the CBDT's transition FAQ says stands repealed on 1 April 2026. For a credit or payment on or after that date the corresponding provision is serial number 1(ii) of the Table to section 393(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, at the same two per cent and the same twenty thousand rupees.
• Statutory position — s.194-I: two per cent on plant, machinery or equipment and ten per cent on land, building, furniture or fittings, on a threshold that became fifty thousand rupees a month on 1 April 2025 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I pay rent for a warehouse and I also hire a generator on a monthly charge. Do I deduct under section 194-I, at what rate on each, and from what figure does the obligation start — is it an annual total or a monthly one?
  Section 194-I sets two rates on one kind of payment: two per cent where the rent is for the use of any machinery or plant or equipment, ten per cent where it is for the use of any land or building (including a factory building), land appurtenant to a building, furniture or fittings, and both have stood since 1 October 2009. The threshold is the part that moved — until 31 March 2025 it was an annual aggregate of two hundred and forty thousand rupees paid to a payee, and from 1 April 2025 the first proviso was substituted so that the test is now whether the rent credited or paid "for a month or part of a month" to that payee exceeds fifty thousand rupees, so a payer who is still adding up the year has the wrong test. The section does not reach an individual or a Hindu undivided family unless the second proviso brings them in on turnover, and the only exclusion written into the section itself is for rent paid to a real estate investment trust on a real estate asset referred to in clause (23FCA) of section 10. All of this is the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the CBDT's own transition FAQ says stands repealed on 1 April 2026. For a credit or payment on or after that date the corresponding provision is serial number 2(ii) of the Table to section 393(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which carries the same two rates and the same fifty-thousand-a-month threshold.
• Statutory position — s.194J: two per cent on technical fees and film royalty, ten per cent on everything else, and a fifty thousand rupee threshold that never reaches a director CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I pay a consultant, I pay an engineering firm for technical work, and I pay my company's non-executive director a sitting fee. Do I deduct two per cent or ten per cent on each, and does the fifty thousand rupee limit apply to all three?
  Section 194J does not have one rate. Since 1 April 2020 it has two, and which one you use depends on which limb of sub-section (1) the payment falls into: two per cent for fees for technical services that are not professional services and for royalty that is consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films; ten per cent for everything else the section catches — professional fees, director's remuneration, other royalty and a non-compete sum under s.28(va) — and two per cent again, under a separate proviso, where the payee is engaged only in the business of operation of a call centre. The threshold in the first proviso is fifty thousand rupees, raised from thirty thousand by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025, and it is set out limb by limb for clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) only — clause (ba), the director limb, is not in that list, so a single rupee of director's fee carries tax. An individual or Hindu undivided family is outside the section altogether unless the second proviso pulls them back in, and then only for fees for professional or technical services. All of this governs a sum credited or paid up to 31 March 2026: the Income-tax Act, 1961 stands repealed on 1 April 2026, and for a payment on or after that date the governing provision is section 393(1), Table, Serial No. 6(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which carries the same two rates and the same fifty thousand rupee threshold.
• Statutory position — s.194C: one per cent for an individual or HUF and two per cent for everyone else, the thirty thousand and one lakh thresholds, and the material-bought-from-a-third-party carve-out that takes a contract outside "work" CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I pay a fabricator to make parts to my drawings and I pay lorry owners to move my goods. Do I deduct under section 194C, at what rate, and at what figure does the obligation start — is it thirty thousand rupees or one lakh?
  Both figures are live and they do different jobs. Section 194C(5) says no deduction is to be made where the single sum credited or paid does not exceed thirty thousand rupees, and its proviso says that once the aggregate of such sums in the financial year exceeds one lakh rupees you must deduct under the section anyway. So a single bill of Rs 35,000 is caught on its own, and a run of Rs 12,000 bills is caught the moment the year's total passes Rs 1,00,000. The rate is one per cent where the payee is an individual or a Hindu undivided family and two per cent in every other case. Whether the fabrication is "work" at all depends on whose material is used: manufacturing to your specification out of material bought from you (or from an associate of yours) is "work"; the same job done out of material the fabricator bought from anyone else is expressly excluded, and that exclusion is the line between section 194C and a contract for sale. All of this is the 1961 Act, which the CBDT's own transition FAQ says stands repealed on 1 April 2026: for a credit or payment on or after that date the corresponding provision is section 393(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which carries the same rates and the same two figures.
• Statutory position — s.195: tax is deducted only on a sum “chargeable under the provisions of this Act”, and Explanation 2 fixes who owes the duty, not what is taxable CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  In March 2026 I remitted a fee to a company outside India without deducting anything, because I did not think any part of it was taxable here. The Assessing Officer now says section 195 obliged me to deduct on the whole remittance, or at least to apply to him before paying. Does section 195 say that — and since the new Act has come in, which Act governs my payment at all?
  Which Act governs is settled by one date: on the CBDT's transition FAQ, where the earlier of credit or payment falls on or before 31 March 2026 the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, and where it falls on or after 1 April 2026 the Income-tax Act, 2025 applies instead — there, the deduction duty sits in section 393(2), Table, Serial No. 17. So a March 2026 remittance is a section 195 question. Section 195(1) does not tax a remittance; it attaches a deduction duty to “any interest … or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act” paid to a non-resident or a foreign company, at the time of credit or of payment, whichever is earlier. Those five words are the gateway, and in GE India Technology Centre the Supreme Court held on 9 September 2010 that they cannot be read out of the sub-section: a payer who is fairly certain that no part of the sum is chargeable in India may make that determination himself and is not obliged to apply under section 195(2) first. Section 195(2) is the payer's application where a composite payment is partly chargeable; section 197 is a different route, taken by the recipient. Sub-section (6) requires information about every sum, whether or not chargeable, in the form prescribed by rule 37BB — which is why the bank asks for a 15CA even where nothing is deductible.

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.