“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

Bhagirath Construcation Co., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 29/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154

processed and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 25.8.2022 by raising a demand of Rs.1,35,710/- giving credit for TDS amounting to Rs.77,36,193/- as against Rs.78,44,038/- as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Bhagirath Construction Co., Bangalore Page ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of the ld. CIT(A) in disallowing the credit of TDS is that the gross receipt as per 26AS was Rs.47,59,74,485/- whereas on perusal of the audit report and profit & loss account

Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur, Solapur vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1230/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

completed on 27.06.2018 assessing the total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, it is found that the assessee has claimed credit for TDS of Rs.42,49,567 in the original return which was subsequently 4 Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur revised to Rs.46,57, 574/- in the revised return

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Best Agrolife Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 4024/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

under suspicious PAN category by CPC, Bengaluru based on letter received from CPC-TDS. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing credit of TDS of Rs.1,04,34,984 /- w.r.t. the of Rs.1,04,34,984 /- claimed by the assessee in its ITR for relevant ... JCIT (A) has analysed the relevant documents submitted by the assessee on the claim of tax deducted at source. He found that the credit of TDS claimed by the assessee is proper and after analyzing the various documents available on ITA No.4024/DEL/2024 record, he has granted the relief

Newry Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 94/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145(1)Section 154Section 194I

impugned assessment years have already been offered to tax. On perusal of the records we note that the assessee is eligible to get credit for TDS as per 26AS, in case the corresponding revenue has already been offered to tax during the earlier assessment years. Therefore ... limited purpose to verify the reconciliation submitted by the assessee in respect of TDS claimed and the turnover offered to tax and grant credit of TDS in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

determining total income at Rs.400,49,18,590/-. The order u/s 143(3) was rectified vide order u/s 154 dated 10.03.2014 to grant credit for TDS. Notably, the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act was not disturbed in this rectification order. Against this order, SCL filed an appeal

M/S. Jagruti Computech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 5751/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)

found that Companies returned income has been enhanced by Rs.28,81,799/- (returned Income 8,52,840/- Assessed Income 37,34,542/-) also credit for TDS of Rs. 17,42,306/- was not given and a consequential demand of Rs.38,45,820/- has been made against the company. 19. That

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)