← All Phrases

“TDS on rent”

TDS / TCSSection 194ISection 194I50 judgments

The decision most relied on for TDS on rent is CIT v. NIIT Ltd. (318 ITR 289), cited in 79 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on TDS on rent

CIT v. NIIT Ltd.
318 ITR 289 · 2009 · High Court
79
citing judgments

A composite agreement, even if charges are broken down, cannot be dissected to apply Section 194I for TDS on rent when the agreement is a business arrangement for mutual obligations.

CIT (TDS) v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
375 ITR 23 · 2015 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Payment for transmission or wheeling of electricity does not constitute rent under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act as it does not involve payment for the use of land, building, or machinery, and possession is a necessary element for rent.

Rajesh Projects (India) (p.) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
78 Taxmann.com 263 · 2017 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee is not liable for TDS default under section 201(1) on payments to NOIDA Authority for lease rents, but the interest liability under section 201(1A) may still apply if the deductee has offered such income. However, the conclusion regarding TDS default applies prospectively.

Japan Airlines Co. Limited v. CIT
377 ITR 372 · 2015 · Supreme Court
23
citing judgments

Payments for services are not rent and thus do not attract TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, unless the payment is specifically for the use of an asset in the nature of land, building, machinery etc. Section 194C applies to such service payments.

ITO v. Tejmalbhai & Co.
99 ITD 399 · 2006 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

The section under which tax is deducted at source (TDS) by the payer does not determine the nature of income in the hands of the recipient. Income received as rent is assessable as business income, not income from house property, even if TDS is wrongly deducted under Section 194-I.

ACIT v. Accenture Services (P.) Ltd.
44 SOT 290 · 2011 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

Payments for hired taxis, where the operator retains possession and control, are subject to TDS under section 194C, not section 194-I. Section 194-I does not apply to payments for transport services involving the use of vehicles if possession is not transferred.

Karwat Steel Traders v. ITO
145 ITD 370 · 2013 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on rent or interest payments is deleted if the recipient has furnished Form 15G, as this indicates no tax was deductible at source or tax was not required to be deducted.

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. ACIT
389 ITR 38 · 2016 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by a tenant are considered rent and are subject to TDS under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, even if paid to a third party, as the term 'rent' is broadly interpreted to include payments for the use of property and associated services.

Judgments citing TDS on rent

The Udhna Citizen Co Opp. Bank Limited, Now Merge With Kalupur Commercial Co.Op. Bank Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O TDS -2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 512/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar vs. Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh Rajesh Rewar, CIT-D.R
Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80G

consonance with the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The Pr. CIT observed that the claim of additional depreciation, verify the TDS on rent and donation in the CRS, the necessary inquiry was not done by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the order

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025 Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025 Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Vikas Vaishnav, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

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

ITA 309/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.309/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vikas Vaishnav Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.261/262, 2Nd Floor, Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Office, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Right Side, Jay Santoshi Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat – 394 210 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anspv 9504 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 147Section 194ISection 263Section 40

interest of revenue in terms of provision of Section 263 of the Act. The impugned issue which was non deduction of TDS on rent expenses of Rs.3,36,000/- u/s 194I of the Act. The Ld. PCIT issued show cause notices on 22.11.2024, however, it is clear that assessee

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 942/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69CSection 6C

financial statement and as per tax audit report and financials was on account of the following reason.  Ind AS adjustment,  Non-deduction of TDS on rent expenses on which TDS was already deducted in the preceding assessment year.  Declaration by vendor based on the CBDT circular 21/2012 which falls within ... Loss account and the amount reported in TDS returns. The same was perused and it was noticed that the appellant has not deducted TDS on rent paid of Rs.66,27,250/- by giving the reason that “vendor has given the declaration that TDS is already suffered on software. Hence TDS

Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited, Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69CSection 6C

financial statement and as per tax audit report and financials was on account of the following reason.  Ind AS adjustment,  Non-deduction of TDS on rent expenses on which TDS was already deducted in the preceding assessment year.  Declaration by vendor based on the CBDT circular 21/2012 which falls within ... Loss account and the amount reported in TDS returns. The same was perused and it was noticed that the appellant has not deducted TDS on rent paid of Rs.66,27,250/- by giving the reason that “vendor has given the declaration that TDS is already suffered on software. Hence TDS

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

Sanjay Yadav, Jahanabad vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

viii) Copy of Reconciliation Statement showing Sale of Scarp and TCS 113 S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. transactions (ix) Copy of ledger of TDS on rent showing transactions covered u/s 1941 of the Income Tax Act 114 (x) Copy of Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

Paid 5,000,000 1,500,000 TDS on Contracts Dismantling costs Various Parties 12 Not Paid 882,738 264,821 TDS on Rent Rent Various Parties 13 Not Paid 1,789,227 536,768 TDS on Technical & Professional Audit Various Parties 14 Not Paid ... Various Patries 5,000,000 1,500,000 TDS on Contracts Dismantling costs 12 Not paid Rent Various Patries 882,738 264,821 TDS on Rent 13 Not paid Various Patries 1,789,227 536,768 TDS on Technical & Professional Audit 14 Not paid Various Patries Total

Pushpa Bai Munat, Badnawar vs. CPC, Bangaluru

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 125/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 203ASection 206CSection 80T

Deductor Total Amount | Crediced 100312100 $2485.00 ‘BPLYOOSSOF PART A2- Details of Ta Deducted at Source on Sale af Immovable Property ls 1OMIA/ TDS on Rent of Property ws 1 IB nee of resident contractors and professionals) AN of Dedyctor Sr.No. | Section! No Transactions Present PARE = Meta of Tax Paid (other

Sri Sai Construction Co, Nizamabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

1 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE

Amar Singh Sahu, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Office 2(4) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 78/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 40

deductionof TDS on commission paid- Rs. 4,17,285/-  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on rent paid- Rs. 4,03,380/- 4. It may be mentioned here that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue ... consequence of misreporting of income. (Addition Rs.4,17,285/-) 8. Disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Non deduction of TDS on Rent paid: On perusal of the profit and loss account shown in ITR filed by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has shown expenses

Infoobjects Software India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

read with circular no. 715 of 1995 it has been held that such hotel expense are not liable for TDS on rent. Hence, these expenses are not covered under the provisions of section 194C, so not liable 11 Infoobjects Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT to deduct TDS. Hence

Karnataka Tyre Agencies, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3, Shimoga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1914/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hiran Krishnaswamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

following disallowances: • Salary expenses: ₹96,790 • Club, vehicle, and computer expenses: ₹1,16,418 • Provision for taxation: ₹56,100 • Non-deduction of TDS on rent: ₹6,54,000 • Underreporting of partners’ current account: ₹2,73,610 • Unexplained sundry creditors: ₹29,51,311 3. These disallowances were added to the total ... hand is limited to the extent of the addition made by the AO as detailed below: • Salary expenses: ₹96,790 • Non-deduction of TDS on rent: ₹6,54,000 . Page 4 of 5 • Underreporting of partners’ current account: ₹2,73,610 • Unexplained sundry creditors

Shree Hari Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 263

found to initiate the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The learned PCIT has directed learned AO to verify the following issues: a. TDS on rent u/s 1941. b. TDS on professional and technical service u/s 194J. c. Value of Closing Stock (WIP) under Percentage Completion Method. d. Genuineness ... ld.Pr.CIT on considering the above reply filed by the assessee has given his finding at para 5.1 of his order as under: “5.1 TDS on Rent u/s 1941: The assessee contended that its total expenditure on Rent is Rs.31,90,941/-. The assessee has also argued that the issue

Kudale Agro Foods, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-14, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 197Section 201(1)Section 40

made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non- deduction of TDS on rent payment made to the payee. 5.1 As regards the interest payment to the fourth party i.e. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., the Ld. AR admitted

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. N Rose Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6334/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 250Section 4S

assessee was asked whether TDS has been deducted on rent paid to tenant. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not deducted TDS on rent paid to the tenant. Accordingly, notice under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was issued to the assessee requesting it to furnish