← 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

Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5062/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Jaro Institute Of Technology Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Management & Research Ltd. Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai 11Th Floor, Vikas Centre, Dr. C. G. Vs. Road, Chembur, Fci, S.O. Mumbai – 400074. Pan/Gir No. Aaccj2107Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Thakkar Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 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) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The 1" Appeal Of 118 Days & Ought To Have Considered The Bonafide Reasons & Compelling Circumstances, Supported With Affidavit, That Had Precluded The Appellant To File The 1" Appeal In Time, 2.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Disallowance Of Sales & Promotion Expenses Of Rs.2,73,78,889, Jaro Institution Of Technology Management & Research Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

ought to have deleted the disallowance of expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of Rs.5,81,780/-, for non- deduction or short deduction of tax at source @ 30% of incurred expenses of Rs.19,39,268/-.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business