← All Phrases

“form 26AS mismatch”

TDS / TCSSection 199Section 1998 judgments

The decision most relied on for form 26AS mismatch is LSG Sky Chef India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (45 Taxmann.com 256), cited in 11 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on form 26AS mismatch

LSG Sky Chef India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
45 Taxmann.com 256 · 2014 · Reported
11
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be denied credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) solely due to a mismatch in Form 26AS if the mismatch is not attributable to the assessee. The burden of proving why Form 26AS does not reflect all TDS details should not be placed on the assessee.

Judgments citing form 26AS mismatch

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2195/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Pudhureddiyur Raju Kalaimani, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1740/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. C. Sathish, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

leave encashment at the time of cessation of employment. :-6-: ITA. No:1740/Chny/2025 16. Further, denial of exemption merely on the basis of Form 26AS mismatch during processing u/s.143(1) is not sustainable, particularly when the claim is supported by documentary evidence and settled legal principles. In view

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, Telangana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

adjustment on delayed receivables, disallowance of donation under Section 80G towards CSR expenditure, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri

Rotomag Motors & Controls (P) Ltd., Anand vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

Appeal is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

These grounds of appeal are allowed. 6.5 Issue No. 5 - Addition of Rs. 19,44,030/- as undisclosed receipts (Form 26AS mismatch) - Ground No. 10 and 11. 6.5.1 The Assessing Officer noted a discrepancy between the assessee’s books of account and the details reported in Form 26AS, showing interest

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

have given a finding that the balance of the amortized cost would be allowable in equal installments in the immediately ensuing next four Form 26As mismatch 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the additions of the following amounts

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3606/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

have given a finding that the balance of the amortized cost would be allowable in equal installments in the immediately ensuing next four Form 26As mismatch 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the additions of the following amounts

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7477/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

have given a finding that the balance of the amortized cost would be allowable in equal installments in the immediately ensuing next four Form 26As mismatch 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the additions of the following amounts

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

have given a finding that the balance of the amortized cost would be allowable in equal installments in the immediately ensuing next four Form 26As mismatch 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the additions of the following amounts