Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-04-03 dismissed

Director, Prasar Bharati vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

Bench: 2 — Abhay Manohar Sapre

In Brief

Prasar Bharati (Doordarshan) paid advertising agencies 15% commission for telecasting advertisements on behalf of consumer companies under written agreements. The Income Tax authorities held that Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which requires deduction of tax at source on commission payments) applied, and Prasar Bharati had failed to deduct tax, thereby violating Section 201(1). The Supreme Court upheld this, holding that the payments constituted 'commission' within Section 194H's definition because the relationship was principal-agent and the payment was for services rendered. The appellant was obligated to deduct tax at source, and non-compliance attracted Section 201 consequences. The appeal was dismissed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Income Tax Tax Deduction at Source Commission Statutory Obligations

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login