DEUTSCHE INVESTOR SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of TDS credit by passing a speaking order, after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing. This was done as the AO had not assigned any reasons for the short credit.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed TDS credit of Rs. 36,602,602, but the Assessing Officer (AO) granted only Rs. 33,239,739 without providing any reasons. The assessee requested a direction for the AO to decide the matter with a speaking order.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO erred in granting short credit for TDS without assigning any reasons. The primary issue was the lack of a speaking order from the AO regarding the TDS credit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “K” BENCH, MUMBAI
Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-12(2)(1) ……………..…........Respondent Mumbai 400020 Appearances by Niraj Sheth for the appellant Akhtar Hussain Ansari for the respondent October 10th , 2020 Date of concluding the hearing : December 8th , 2020 Date of pronouncement : ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question correctness of learned Assessing Officer order dated 31st December 2015, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011- 12.
Ground no.1 is not pressed, and, is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
In ground no.2, the assessee has raised the following grievance: (2) The AO erred in granting short credit for TDS of Rs.33,239,739 out of, the total TDS credit of Rs,36,602,602 claimed in the Return of Income for the year under appeal, without assigning any reason.
Assessment Year 2011-12 Page 2 of 2
Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer has granted short credit for TDS, and has not assigned any reasons for such short credit. All that he seeks is a direction to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter by way of a speaking order. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose the said prayer.
In view of the above discussions, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to decide the matter, regarding credit for TDS-as claimed by the assessee, by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law and after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ordered, accordingly.
Ground no. 2 is thus allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.
In the result, the appeals is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court today on the 8th day of December, 2020.
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026