“Section 199(1)”

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INCRED FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit-2(1)(1), Mumbai Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400021 ............... Appellant

bond, without ensuring that whether the tax so deducted had actually been deposited to the credit of the Central Government, as required under section 199(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances

GLEN MORGAN D COSTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

credit in her hand, as the same has been denied in the hands of the assessee.\n7. From the plain reading of section 199(1) of the Act, we find that any deduction of tax made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XVII of the Act and paid ... wife had filed a rectification application for her share.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(1)", "Section 154", "Section 194-IA", "Section 195", "Section 199(1)", "Section 199(3)", "Rule 37BA" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the entire TDS credit when only 50% of the capital gain

UPASANI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

credit results in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. 13. To buttress this contention, reference was made to the enabling provision of Section 199(1), which provides that any deduction made and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as payment of tax on behalf of the person ... claim. The controversy arises purely on account of a mismatch caused by the deductors in reporting the TDS against the wrong PAN. 17. Section 199(1) of the Act provides in unequivocal terms that any deduction of tax at source paid to the Central Government shall be treated

EASTERN SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosaineastern Shipping Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 6(2)(1) Godrej Coliseum, Office No. Aayakar Bhavan 801, 8Th Floor, C Wing, Of Mumbai Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai – 400022. Pan/Gir No. Aahce1084E (Applicant) (Respondent)

requires consideration that, the amount of income as reflected in the return of income stands accepted without any adjustment. 7. Where as per section 199(1) of the Act, a deduction of tax at source made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII and paid to the Central Government

U GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaru Games Private Limited, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Tower 4, Central B Wing, 5 Th बनाम 13(1)(1), 225, Aaykar Floor, Nesco It Park, Nesco Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Centre, Western Express Road, Mumbai–400020, Highway, Goregaon (East), Maharashtra Mumbai –400 063, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccu7582L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Games Private Limited of a substantive provision.What needs to be seen is harmonious construction of section 199(1) of the Act read with the conditions provided in rule 37BA and intention of the legislature was not to deny the credit if the income on which tax has been deducted

PUNIT DEORA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

which is otherwise directory in nature, cannot\ndisturb the writ of a substantive provision. What needs to be seen is\nharmonious construction of section 199(1) of the Act read with the\nconditions provided in rule 37BA and intention of the legislature was not\nto deny the credit

MILAHA INTEGRATED MARITME AND LOGISTICS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

No.1618/Mum/2022, order dated\n27.04.2023, where elaborate discussions have been made. Relevant\nparas from this order are reproduced below:\n“14. The provision of Section 199(1) reads as under:-\n“199(1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing\nprovisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government ... Late Russi\nDinshaw Bahadurji even though TDS has been deducted in the case of Deed of\nSettlement / Trust. There is no provision of Section 199(1) that deduction cannot\nbe allowed on the payment of tax who has offered the income. Rule 37BA which\nhas been framed by the CBDT

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

deductees whose deductors have deposited the amount with the Central government. 7.1 Moreover, the expression “and paid” to the Central Government found in Section 199(1) must be contextualized in the setting in which it is placed, i.e., Chapter XVII, whereby, the sanctions for failing to deposit tax with

SHUBHANKAR NAYAK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41 (2)(5), BKC

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Rs.9,48,696/-.\n2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT Appeal\nignored the provisions of section 199(1) read with Rule 37BA of Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... flat, as appearing in\ntheir Form-26AS, was not claimed by them while computing their tax liability.\n7. From the plain reading of section 199(1) of the Act, we find that any\ndeduction of tax made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XVII of the\nAct and paid