← All Phrases

“short deduction of tax”

TDS / TCSSection 201Section 201359 judgments

The decision most relied on for short deduction of tax is CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (389 ITR 68), cited in 192 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on short deduction of tax

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.
389 ITR 68 · 2016 · High Court
192
citing judgments

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 45 · 2015 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made when the assessee has deducted tax at a lesser rate, as opposed to no deduction. The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable retrospectively, mitigating disallowance where tax is deposited by the recipient.

CIT v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.
292 ITR 636 · 2007 · High Court
153
citing judgments

The deduction of tax at source under section 192 is not to be considered short if the employer makes a bona fide estimate of the taxable salary income of the employee.

CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal
361 ITR 432 · 2014 · High Court
150
citing judgments

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to disallow expenses when there is a short deduction of tax at source. This includes situations where TDS is deducted at a lower rate than required or under an incorrect section.

DIT v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/ Mitsubhishi Corporation
330 ITR 578 · 2011 · High Court
115
citing judgments

Interest under Section 234B is generally not leviable on non-residents whose income is subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195, provided the non-resident assessee did not induce short or non-deduction of TDS by the payer.

CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd.
288 ITR 15 · 2007 · High Court
76
citing judgments

Expenditure on software useful for a short period or requiring regular updates, for which subscription fees are paid, constitutes revenue expenditure, distinguishable from capitalized software purchased on a perpetual license model, based on the test of enduring benefit.

CIT-1, Kochi v. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd.
60 Taxmann.com 69 · 2015 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies even in cases of short deduction of tax at source, including when tax is deducted under an incorrect provision.

State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
144 Taxmann.com 131 · 2022 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

An assessee is required to deduct tax at source on reimbursements, even if the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that such reimbursements were exempt.

Judgments citing short deduction of tax

Kalpana Kannangath Kutty, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4896/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kalpana Kannangath Kutty Assistant Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 4506, 45Th Floor, Tower 4, Tax Circle – 112(1), Mumbai Vs. Crescent Bay, Jerbai Wadia Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Agipk4160H (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) A/W. Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Upholding The Infructuous Penalty Of Rs. 5,89,279/- Wrongly Levied For A.Y. 2006-07. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant & In Law Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Considering The Penalty Order Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Ld. Ao Prior To Passing Of Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Which Is Dated 19.12.2008. 2 Kalpana Kannangath Kutty

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Present) a/w. Ms. Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr,. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 40

addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia), amounting to Rs. 17,50,681/- and Rs. 29,23,395/- towards non deduction of tax and short deduction of tax. Even otherwise, assuming that the said penalty order is levied for A.Y. 2007-08 which assessment was concluded on 30.11.2009, the notice

Bose Corporation India Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 73 (1), New Delhi

ITA 2004/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2003/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2004/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 1St Floor, Tower-A, Building No. 10, Circle-73(1), Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110092 Gurugram, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3260A Assessee By : Dr. Sashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Instant Two Appeals Ita Nos. 2003 & 2004/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Bengaluru’S Common Orders Dated 29.02.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023- 24/1061748591(1) & In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061768679(1), In Proceedings U/S 201(1A) & 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Dr. Sashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

upholding the findings of Ld. AO in treating the Appellant as "Assessee in Default" under section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for short deduction of tax of INR 15,16,427/- (along with interest of INR 16,22, 103/- therefore total TDS liability ... Delhi (Ld. AO) has erred in treating the appellant as Assessee in Default under section 201(1)(1A) of the Act for short deduction of tax of INR 15,16,427/- by holding that the payment for common area maintenance (CAM) charges is in the nature of rent and thereby

Bose Corporation India Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 73 (1), New Delhi

ITA 2003/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2003/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2004/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 1St Floor, Tower-A, Building No. 10, Circle-73(1), Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110092 Gurugram, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3260A Assessee By : Dr. Sashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Instant Two Appeals Ita Nos. 2003 & 2004/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Bengaluru’S Common Orders Dated 29.02.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023- 24/1061748591(1) & In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061768679(1), In Proceedings U/S 201(1A) & 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Dr. Sashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

upholding the findings of Ld. AO in treating the Appellant as "Assessee in Default" under section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for short deduction of tax of INR 15,16,427/- (along with interest of INR 16,22, 103/- therefore total TDS liability ... Delhi (Ld. AO) has erred in treating the appellant as Assessee in Default under section 201(1)(1A) of the Act for short deduction of tax of INR 15,16,427/- by holding that the payment for common area maintenance (CAM) charges is in the nature of rent and thereby

Santhanagopalan Chitra, Tiruchirapalli vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Tiruchirapalli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1725/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1725/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Santhanagopalan Chitra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-2(S), X-A, Cross, Thillainagar, Tds Ward 1, Tiruchirapalli 620 018. Tiruchirapalli 620 002. [Pan: Aaepc5516B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.05.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 1Section 192Section 194JSection 201

tax. Therefore, in our opinion, in the present case, the assessee cannot be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of short deduction of tax. Therefore, imposition of interest for short deduction as imposed by the ITO, TDS, which was confirmed