SHRI VENKTESH AYURVEDIC AUSHDHALAYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD (E), JODHPUR, JODHPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing a declaration under Rule 37BA(2) is procedural and not mandatory when the beneficial ownership of the income is established and the income is offered to tax by the assessee. Therefore, the credit for TDS could not be denied.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 2,47,910/- which was deducted in the PAN of the trustee, not the assessee trust. The assessee argued that the securities were held in the trustee's name as the trust could not open a demat account, and the interest income was earned on trust funds and offered to tax by the trust.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS credit can be denied solely due to non-compliance with the procedural requirement of filing a declaration under Rule 37BA(2) when the beneficial ownership of income is established and offered to tax.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMARShri Venktesh Ayurvedic
P a g e | 2 Shri Venktesh Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya
Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A)-01, Nashik(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 16.01.2026 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:-
The intimation order dated 09.01.2025 passed u/s 143(1
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.
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 199
- M/S. Harsha Engineers International Ltd… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1357/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. Harsha Engineers International Ltd… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1357/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Highrise Slipform Infra Private Limited… vs Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1267/PUN/2026[AY 2024-25]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026