“credit for TDS”

TDS / TCSSection 199Section 199603 judgments

The decision most relied on for credit for TDS is Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders (127 Taxmann 523), cited in 162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on credit for TDS

Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders

127 Taxmann 523 · 2003 · High Court

162

citing judgments

An assessee is required to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of a cash credit in their books of accounts, such as an unsecured loan, but is generally not required to prove the source of the source for such credits. Additions under Section 68 are deleted if sufficient proof of creditors, repayment, and TDS on interest is provided.

Trib.), and Noida Commercial Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO(TDS)

64 Taxmann.com 158 · 2015 · Reported

citing judgments

A multi-state cooperative bank is obligated to deduct tax at source on interest paid or credited on fixed deposits placed by cooperative societies, as per Section 194A(1) read with Section 194A(3) of the Act, unless an exemption applies.

CIT v. JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd.

370 ITR 454 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments to banks for credit card transaction processing are considered bank charges or fees for services rendered, not commission or brokerage, and therefore are not subject to TDS under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.

357 ITR 396 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to credit for TDS even if the certificate is issued in the name of a joint venture or related party, provided the income to which the TDS relates is offered by the assessee. This principle emphasizes looking at the substance of the transaction over strict adherence to the name on the TDS certificate.

Escorts Ltd. v. DCIT

15 SOT 368 · 2007 · ITAT

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) even if the income in respect of which TDS was deducted is not disclosed in the return. The Income-tax Department cannot deny TDS credit solely on the grounds that the income was not offered to tax.

Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT

293 ITR 539 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Once tax has been deducted at source (TDS), the bar of section 205 applies, preventing the deductee from being asked to pay the tax again, even if the deductor fails to deposit the tax or issue TDS certificates.

Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. v. ITO

3 ITR (Trib) 339 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

Once Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is deducted and paid to the Central Government, credit for such tax must be given to the assessee, irrespective of the assessment year to which it relates. This principle applies even to amended provisions of Section 199(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

PCIT v. Shree Aradhana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.

172 Taxmann.com 537 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

A co-operative society is primarily a co-operative society, and therefore, it is not required to deduct tax at source on interest payments made on time deposits to other co-operative societies, by virtue of Section 194A(3)(v).

Judgments citing credit for TDS

Evergreen Infrasolutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-8(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 147/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshevergreen Infrasolutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, D-14, 2Nd Floor, Preet Vihar, Circle-8(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacce9584D

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

dismissed subject to above mentioned direction for suitable reduction in subsequent years. 7. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is seeking credit for TDS on advance received by the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is trite law that

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6543/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 14A

source amounting to Rs.6,04,276/-, after considering the submissions and material placed on record, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the credit for TDS as per law after due verification. 27. Grounds No.4 & 5 are general in nature, hence do not require any adjudication. 28. With regard

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6415/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 14A

Late Soli C. Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the necessary credit for TDS of Rs. 80,000/- 7) The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to cancel the demand standing against the Appellant in his Demand ... represented by his legal heir. 3.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, the only short issue involved in these three appeals are regarding short credit of TDS for the years under consideration. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee filed the return declaring following income during the years under consideration

Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1984/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1983/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5953/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Tata Communications Limited, Income Tax-1(3)(1), Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Room No. 540, Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Road, 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai G.P.O. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra-400001. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Pan : Aaacv2808C Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi A/W. Shri K.A. Damania Revenue By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 22-08-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-21, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Limited Grounds Of Appeal, Reads As Under: “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Credit Against Physical Tds Certificate To The Extent Of Rs.15,84,05,028/- Which Were Not Appearing In 26As On The Traces Site Without Verification Of The Same By The Ao As Directed By The Hon'Ble Itat In Previous Years In The Own Case Of The Assessee?”

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Citicorp Finance (India) Limited. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 8532/Mum/2011). Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the income tax department is required to give credit for TDS once the valid TDS certificate had been produced or even where the deductor had not issued TDS certificates on the basis of evidence produced ... decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the year under consideration itself, AO is directed to give the credit of TDS of Rs. 2,44,03,00,005/- to the appellant. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed.” 3. It was submitted that

M/S. Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

treating short time capital gains as long time capital gains, income from business as income from house property and giving the necessary credit for TDS. Page - 3 - of 13 ITA No. 511 /Chny/2025 5.0 The PCIT- 4 Chennai premised that the mistake concerning treatment of short time capital gains

Schindler India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 4819/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2020-21 Schindler India Private Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of Schindler House, Income Tax, Main Street, Vs. Circle-15(3)(2) Hiranandani Gardens, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai -400076 New Marine Lines, [Pan: Aaecs1548J] Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 92C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making a granting credit of TDS amounting to INR 24,20,36,253/- instead of INR 24,26,23,210/-, resulting in short grant of tax credit amounting ... Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant the credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 5,86,957/- 9. Ground No. 9: Levy of Interest U/S 234A and 234B of The Act: 9.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Ashok Bricks Industries Private Limited, Belpahar R S vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Rourkela Circle

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

ITA 182/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Ground Nos. 1 to 5 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. As regards Ground No. 6 for not allowing the credit for TDS made, this issue is also set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide considering the facts of the case and this Ground

China Kunlun Contracting and Engineering Corporation, Mumbai vs. DDIT (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3778/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms Smita Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash (SR. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 54

year, as assessee had failed to file return of income within the due date of filing the return u/s.139(1). In respect of credit for TDS, a direction was given to the ld. Assessing Officer to verify the same and give credit corresponding to income assessable during the year. Aggrieved

Saffron Art Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -8(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr. DR

Section 250

assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment accepting income returned by the assessee. However, the AO did not allow the credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 9,63,673/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the income ... already offered to tax denying the benefit of TDS in the current year will amount to double taxation and accordingly prayed that the credit for TDS be allowed. However, the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee stating that there is no provision under the Act to carry forward

Kerala State Cooperative Employees Pension Board, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 223/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 239Section 80A

23AAA) of the Act. However, the appellant had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) contesting that the appellant was not granted credit for TDS of Rs. 6,07,52,715/- claimed as refund. 3. After receiving the assessment order the appellant filed a petition ... seeking credit for TDS OF Rs. 6,07,52,715/- and the same was rejected by the AO vide order dated 08.06.2023 passed u/s. 154 of the Act by holding that in the absence of a valid return of income no refund can be granted and also placed reliance

Vinod Kumar Mourya, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 653/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 195Section 205Section 250

seen that assessee has filed return of income for AY 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.54,51,900/- on 29.03.2016 and claimed credit for TDS and TCS of Rs.15,04,388/-. While processing the return, the CPC has not allowed the credit of Rs.4,11,615/- in respect ... deposit of TDS by the deductor, Vinod Kumar Mourya vs. DCIT Koutons Group. But ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that, "the credit of TDS cannot be given to the assessee because TDS so deducted has not been deposited by the Koutons Group with the state exchequer. 11. Legislative

Vinod Kumar Mourya, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Cirecle

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 652/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 195Section 205Section 250

Shri Jagannath Transport Corporation, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 162/RPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 162/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2023-24)

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

notice u/s 139(9) was issued on 13.02.2024, stating that the gross receipts of assessee reflecting in Form 26AS, on which credit for TDS has been claimed, are higher than the total of the receipts shown under all heads of income, in the return of income. Thus, while credit ... Since TDS of Rs. 1,26,64,229/- is evidenced by Form 26AS pertaining to the appellant, the grant of credit of TDS of Rs. 1,26,64,229/- against the TDS claimed in ITR of Rs. 1,49,74,282/- oy the CPC and disallowed the TDS

Rohit Keshavrao Gujar, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle Three

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 545/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe (Sr. DR)

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 148

regard to addition made of Rs.15,00,000/- he directed the AO to delete the addition. He further directed the AO to grant credit for TDS of Rs.11,28,747/- appearing in Form- 26AS. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that when the proceedings were taken

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 142/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. & Sh. ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

upheld the addition of Rs. 2,70,760/- made on this account, but he directed the Id. AO to also allow the credit for TDS on this account while computing the tax liability. 17. The assessee is aggrieved at these disallowances and has accordingly come before us. Sh. K.R. Rastogi

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Limited, Lucknow vs. D.C.I.T. Range-6 (Jao), Lucknow

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 199

addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33,49,65,000/- and also the disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior ... period expenses. However, with regard to the issue relating to non-allowance of credit for TDS, the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the claim of TDS made by the assessee and allow TDS credit subject to necessary verification to satisfy

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Limited, Lucknow vs. The DCIT, Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 199