ITO, WARD- 8(3), NEW DELHI vs. E24 GLAMOUR LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) allowed a portion of the claim based on Form 16A for payments made to one company, while confirming the disallowance for the remaining amount where TDS was not deducted.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed expenses reimbursed to its holding companies. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses for non-furnishing of TDS details and proof of deposit.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of reimbursed expenses is justified when TDS was deducted but proof of deposit was not provided, and whether Form 16A is sufficient evidence for TDS compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi dated 13.02.2019.
The assessee company is engaged in the business of broadcasting of entertainment channel. During the year, the assessee company has claimed expenses reimbursed to the holding M/s BAG Films and Media Ltd. and M/s Allied Infotainment Distribution Pvt. Ltd. The assessee company has not furnished requisite details alongwith the proof of TDS on the payments made before the Assessing Officer. The company has furnished the copy of confirmation dated 10.02.2015 from the aforesaid companies that TDS was deducted wherever it was applicable but no proof of deposit or challan was furnished for verification. Hence, the AO disallowed the amount reimbursed.
2 E24 Glamour Ltd.
The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has furnished copies of Form 16A in support of TDS in the payment made to M/s Allied Infotainment Distribution Pvt. Ltd. on account of channel payment charges of Rs.17.03 Cr. which is included in the total addition made by the AO of Rs.17.78 Cr. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the remaining amount of Rs.2.72 Cr. as the assessee failed to deduct the TDS. Since, the remission given by the ld. CIT(A) is rightly based on Form 16A and Form 26AS, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/06/2022.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(iib)
- Lifestyle International Private Limited… vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 2…ITA 824/BANG/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2026AY 2021-22
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rajasthan State Road Development and…ITA 1920/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed2 Jul 2026AY 2018-19
- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur vs Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle…ITA 149/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 148/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
- Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 197/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026