TAC LOGISTICS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7165/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2018AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the TDS credit and allow the claim of the assessee as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed TDS credit of ₹ 3,40,950/- on gross receipts as reflected in Form 26AS. The AO reopened the case and made additions, which were upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's entitlement to TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS, which was initially disputed by the AO and CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-37/IT-533/ITO-25(3)(5)/16-17 dated 26.09.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Ward 25(2)(5) Mumbai (in short ‘ITO') for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 20.12.16 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) not allowing TDS credit of ₹ 3,40,950/- on gross receipts which was reflected in 26As.

3.

Briefly stated facts are that as per form No. 26AS, the AO received information that the assessee has made payment to contractors amounting to ₹ 1,63,91,848/- and also made time deposit for an amount of ₹ 5 lacs. The assessee’s case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by assessing 10% of contract receipts and also making addition of unexplained time deposit under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. Now, aggrieved assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.

4.

Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee only requested that credit for TDS of ₹ 3,40,950/- deducted on gross receipt, which is also reflected in Form No. 26 AS should be given. When this was confronted to the learned Departmental Representative, he fairly agreed to the facts. Accordingly, I direct the AO to verify the TDS credit and allow the claim of the assessee as per law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14-05-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 14.05.2018 kao kI ga[- .

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →