Check one 194J TDS line against an invoice or 26AS entry. See whether nil, 2% call-centre TDS, or ordinary 10% TDS best explains the figure.
Why does this page ask for earlier payments from the same payer?
Because section 194J's ₹30,000 threshold is about the aggregate from that payer in that financial year, not about one invoice in isolation. A ₹20,000 line can correctly carry no TDS in January and correctly carry 10% in March, depending on what came before it from the same payer.
Why does this page not ask whether the service was professional or technical?
Because the rate is the same for both on the readable law page we could open: 10%. The distinction matters to classification, not to this arithmetic. What changes the figure here is the threshold and the 2% call-centre proviso.
What if the number matches neither 0%, 2% nor 10%?
Then the payer probably did not deduct from the same base you typed here. The commonest reason is that the invoice total and the amount treated as subject to TDS are not the same line. This page tells you when the published 194J readings do not explain the figure; it does not guess the base they actually used.
Does this page cover rent under section 194I too?
No. The readable 194I page we could open still carries Year 2010 and the old ₹1,80,000 threshold, which is exactly the stale statutory figure this site exists not to repeat. So this page will not quote a current rent threshold from it.
Does this page cover every branch of section 194J?
No. It does not quote the individual or HUF turnover and personal-purpose branch, and it does not quote director fees, royalty or section 28(va). It checks the common business path only: professional or technical fees to a resident payee, with the threshold and the 2% call-centre proviso visible on the readable page we could open.