AZURE GREEN TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 6198/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee paid interest to a foreign entity and deducted TDS at a lower rate than what the PCIT believed was applicable. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, proposing disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(i) due to short TDS deduction.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) cannot be made for short deduction of TDS; the appropriate course of action is to invoke Section 201. Therefore, the PCIT's direction for disallowance was not justified.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking revision jurisdiction to direct disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(i) for short deduction of TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 40(a)(i),Section 201,Section 271C,Section 94B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The appeals in ITA No.6198 & 6199/Del/2026 for AYs 2020-21 and 1. 2021-22, arises out of the order of the ld Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. PCIT’, in short] dated 27.03.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 14

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,474 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →