DEEPAK RAMLAL WADHAWAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 198 of the Income Tax Act deems tax deducted at source as income received. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the TDS amount as tax paid while simultaneously refusing to offer the corresponding interest income for taxation.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for interest income that was accrued but not received, citing a difference in accounting methods. The company that owed the interest had deducted TDS, which was reflected in the assessee's Form 26AS. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, and the CIT(A) confirmed this.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS deducted on accrued but unreceived interest income can be claimed as tax paid without offering the corresponding interest income to tax, given the assessee's cash basis of accounting for such income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057624397(1), dated 02.11.2023, against the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax–27(1), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
2 Deepak Ramlal Wadhawan, AY 2014-15
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 22.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We note that there is a delay of 78 days of filing of this appeal for which assessee has placed on record petition along with affidavit for condonation of the delay. Reasons mentioned in the
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 198
- Hanoze Harish Thakkar, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), MumbaiITA 9314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Netscout Systems Industrial Private… vs DCIT- Circle 1(3)(1), MumbaiITA 3582/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Anita Grover, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, DelhiITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Knight Frank Property Services Private… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 1247/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Jul 2026AY 2018-19
- JCIT(OSD)(E) Circle-1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat Maritime Board, GandhinagarITA 212/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed13 May 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
