This compilation indexes twelve rulings — spanning Income Tax Appellate Tribunal benches across India and two High Courts — in which Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was a central or co-examined provision. The cases range from June 2020 to June 2026 and arise in varied commercial contexts: telecom distribution, freight, pharmaceuticals, real estate brokerage, and proprietorship businesses. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for locating primary source material on TDS obligations relating to commission and brokerage payments.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference, not legal or tax advice. Readers must independently verify all rulings against full judgments, check for subsequent stays or reversals, and consult qualified advisors before acting on any matter.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires any person (other than an individual or Hindu Undivided Family not subject to audit under Section 44AB in the immediately preceding financial year) who is responsible for paying, or crediting, any income by way of commission or brokerage — other than insurance commission referred to in Section 194D — to deduct income tax at source at the prescribed rate at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment, whichever is earlier. The section defines "commission or brokerage" to include any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly, by a person acting on behalf of another person for services rendered (not being professional services) or for any services in the course of buying or selling of goods, or in relation to any transaction relating to any asset, valuable article, or thing, not being securities.

The 12 rulings

1. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad vs Pothireddy Sudhakar Reddy, Hyderabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Date: 12 June 2026
Sections engaged: 147, 148, 194H, 44A, 68, 69A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 31/03/2025, which in turn arose from the order passed by the Assessing Officer in ITA No. 955/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The source preview is procedural and does not disclose the substantive findings of the Tribunal on the merits.

2. Bharti Airtel Ltd - Through Its vs Income Tax Officer

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 24 April 2024
Sections engaged: 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter was heard as R/Tax Appeal No. 341 of 2012 before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. The appeal was decided by way of an oral judgment. The source preview is primarily procedural and header-level in nature, and does not disclose the substantive reasoning or final direction of the High Court's ruling on the Section 194H question.

3. M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Indore vs Jcit TDS, Indore

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Date: 3 May 2023
Sections engaged: 271C, 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These four appeals (ITA Nos. 407 to 410/Ind/2018) by the assessee were directed against four separate orders of the CIT(A)-II, Indore, all dated 01.03.2018, arising from penalty levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 respectively. The assessee raised common grounds across all four appeals, challenging the confirmation of the penalty levy by the CIT(A). The source preview does not disclose the Tribunal's final determination on the penalty.

4. N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 16 November 2022
Sections engaged: 40, 194H
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was allowed. The proceedings involved four consolidated appeals, including ITA Nos. 328/Ahd/2017 and 329/Ahd/2017 (AY 2011-12) and ITA No. 1211/Ahd/2018 (AY 2012-13), filed by N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd. and N.K. Industries Ltd. against orders of the CIT(A)-9 and CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad. The source preview indicates the matters arose from orders of the learned CIT(A) and were consolidated for hearing on 22/09/2022 and 13/10/2022 before the "B" Bench.

5. M/S. Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt vs ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 31 May 2022
Sections engaged: 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals included ITA Nos. 2355/Del/2015 and 2356/Del/2015 (Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12) filed by the assessee, and cross-appeals ITA Nos. 2925/Del/2015 and 2926/Del/2015 (Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13) filed by the Revenue. The source preview indicates the dispute involved commission or incentive payments made to distributors under an agreement, with the telecom service provider having paid commission for services provided under the agreement and having withheld tax on the same. The substantive outcome is not disclosed in the source preview.

6. Rathore Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 30 March 2022
Sections engaged: 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 3296/AHD/2016, Assessment Year 2012-13) was filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The source preview is primarily procedural and contains a reconciliation table comparing book entries of the assessee company with entries in the books of a counterparty; the Tribunal's substantive findings on the Section 194H issue are not disclosed in the available preview.

7. Shri Govind Ganpatlal Thakkar vs The ACIT (Osd), Circle-10, Ahmedabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 28 October 2021
Sections engaged: 194C, 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 403/AHD/2016, Assessment Year 2011-2012) was filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer. The source preview indicates the Assessing Officer noted income disclosed in ITS under Section 194H at Rs. 59,03,613, as against Rs. 52,63,938 per the assessee's return, reflecting income not disclosed of Rs. 6,39,675 under that head; similar discrepancies were noted under other TDS sections. The Tribunal's final conclusion on the Section 194H and Section 194C characterisation issue is not disclosed in the source preview.

8. Shri Surendra Gajraj, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Date: 14 September 2021
Sections engaged: 194H, 2(31)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 1018/JP/2018, Assessment Year 2014-15) was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 18/06/2018. The source preview indicates the dispute involved commission payments made to Vikram Singh Kulhari (Rs. 3,58,952), Rameshwar Singh Janu (Rs. 3,46,569), and Surendra Gajraj HUF (Rs. 4,52,861), with the Assessing Officer disallowing the aggregate sum and the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,58,382. The Tribunal's final ruling is not disclosed in the available preview.

9. R.Rathinasamy vs The Chairman

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 22 February 2021
Sections engaged: 194H, 194J
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This writ petition (W.P. No. 8772 of 2015) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned circular of the second respondent (Canara Bank) bearing Circular No. 112/2015 dated 07.03.2015. The petitioner was appointed as a valuer by the respondent bank, and the challenge appears to relate to the applicable TDS provision — Section 194H or Section 194J — on payments made to the petitioner. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the date of final hearing; the substantive outcome is not disclosed in the source preview.

10. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 26 November 2020
Sections engaged: 194H, 201(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter involved six consolidated appeals — ITA Nos. 1269, 1270, and 1271/Ahd/2017 filed by the assessee and ITA Nos. 1184, 1185, and 1197/Ahd/2017 filed by the Revenue — covering Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. The source preview identifies the assessee's PAN as AAACI5120L. The appeals appear to involve TDS obligations and potential default proceedings; the Tribunal's substantive findings are not disclosed in the available preview.

11. Aditya Mohapatra, Dhenkanal vs Principal CIT-2, Bhubaneswar

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack
Date: 7 September 2020
Sections engaged: 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The assessee filed this appeal (ITA No. 155/CTK/2016, Assessment Year 2012-2013) against a revisionary order passed by the Principal CIT-2, Bhubaneswar dated 21.03.2016. This appeal had a prior procedural history: it was first disposed of by the Tribunal on 29.08.2017, then the assessee challenged that order before the jurisdictional High Court, which vide order dated 21.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 22608 of 2017 set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the assessee to file documents; accordingly, the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

12. Muradul Haque, New Delhi vs ITO, Ward-44(1), New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 18 June 2020
Sections engaged: 40(a), 194H
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 114/Del/2019, Assessment Year 2014-15) was filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.10.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi. Per the source preview, the assessee is an individual engaged in trading in fabric and job work who electronically filed a return for AY 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 8,07,670; the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 23.12.2016 determining total income at Rs. 32,33,420, by inter alia disallowing Rs. 24,25,747 under Section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal's final decision on the Section 194H and Section 40(a) disallowance issue is not disclosed in the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Disallowance under Section 40(a) as a recurring companion issue. Multiple cases in this compilation (cases 4 and 12) pair Section 194H with Section 40, reflecting the well-known mechanism whereby failure to deduct TDS on commission payments triggers disallowance of the underlying expenditure in the payer's hands. This linkage appears across different industry contexts and ITAT benches.
Penalty proceedings under Section 271C as a distinct litigation stream. Case 3 (M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Indore) demonstrates that Section 194H TDS disputes can generate a parallel and separate litigation track through penalty proceedings under Section 271C, distinct from the primary assessment litigation. The four appeals in that case covered Assessment Years 2007-08 through 2010-11, illustrating how legacy TDS characterisation disputes can produce multi-year penalty chains.
Telecom distributor commission as a recurring factual context. Cases 2, 3, and 5 all involve Bharti Airtel or Unitech Wireless entities, and the source previews disclose that the nature of commission or incentive payments made to distributors under commercial agreements was a central factual question. This reflects a broader pattern of Section 194H applicability disputes in the telecom sector involving distributor and channel-partner payment structures.
Section 194H vs. Section 194J as a classification boundary dispute. Case 9 (R. Rathinasamy vs. The Chairman, Madras High Court) engaged both Section 194H and Section 194J, arising from a challenge to a bank's internal circular on TDS deduction. This illustrates the recurring practical question of whether a payment constitutes commission/brokerage (attracting Section 194H) or fees for professional or technical services (attracting Section 194J), a boundary that has produced litigation across multiple fora.
Multi-year consolidated proceedings as a structural feature. Several cases in this compilation involved bundles of four to six separate appeals covering multiple assessment years heard together (cases 3, 4, 10), suggesting that Section 194H disputes — particularly in large corporate TDS matters — tend to be litigated in consolidated batches rather than as isolated single-year appeals.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a starting-point index, not a substitute for reading the full judgment. Each entry above is drawn from the structured text preview available in the TaxNoticeAI corpus; in many cases that preview covers only the cause-title, procedural history, and opening paragraphs of the order, meaning the Tribunal's or Court's substantive reasoning and operative directions may not be fully captured here. Researchers should retrieve the complete judgment from indiankanoon.org or the relevant official court portal before drawing any conclusions about the legal proposition established or the factual findings made.

Before relying on any ruling listed here for a research memorandum, compliance position, or litigation strategy, verify whether the order has been subsequently stayed, appealed, reversed, or distinguished by a higher forum. ITAT orders may be appealed to the relevant High Court under Section 260A; High Court orders may be challenged before the Supreme Court. An order appearing final at ITAT level may have a pending High Court appeal that is not reflected in this index.

Researchers should also cross-check the applicable CBDT circulars, notifications, and clarifications in force for the relevant assessment year, as the threshold limits for TDS deduction under Section 194H, the applicable rate, and the exemption categories have been amended from time to time. The statutory text applicable to a dispute is the version in force during the relevant previous year, which may differ from the current provision.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 194H TDS on Commission: 12 Indian Court & ITAT Rulings