TMW FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 30/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, TMW Fintech Private Limited, is in appeal against the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Ld. ADDL./JOINT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 31.12.2024 under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determined a TDS liability of Rs.22,98,715/-, comprising Rs.12,70,008/- as outstanding TDS and Rs.10,28,707/- as interest. The Ld. Commissioner had rejected the assessee's plea regarding a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) due to a lack of supporting documentary evidence, thereby sustaining the determined liability. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2019-20.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the additional written submissions and the peculiar facts, observed that the Ld. Commissioner had rejected the assessee's plea concerning the IBC moratorium for want of supporting documents. The assessee has now undertaken to furnish these documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the applicability and effect of the IBC moratorium on the liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, after considering the relevant documents and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to furnish the requisite documents and cooperate in the proceedings. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in rejecting the assessee's plea regarding the applicability of the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for want of supporting documentary evidence, thereby sustaining the TDS liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that a moratorium under the IBC was applicable and should have absolved them of the TDS liability. They contended that the Ld. Commissioner wrongly rejected this plea due to a lack of documents, which they are now prepared to furnish. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding this issue. However, the Ld. Commissioner's order, as described, sustained the liability by rejecting the assessee's IBC plea for want of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, SR DR
Pronounced: 14.10.2026

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 01.11.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. ADDL./JOINT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), for A.Y. 2019-20. 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 31.12.2024 passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, determined TDS liability of Rs.22,98,715/-, comprising outstanding TDS

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 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →