← All Phrases

“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
66
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
54
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
48
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
39
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
38
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
35
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
31
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

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 130/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

United Inida Insurance Co. Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 13/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 129/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 128/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

ACIT, Chennai vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 426/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 639/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 1671/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 1670/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 1585/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 1584/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 1571/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

United India Insurance Co. Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 1085/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

with assessment order for AY 2019-20, iv) Non-credit u/s.115JAA of Rs.7,44,96,34,633/- for AY 2018-19. v) Non-credit of TDS Rs.40,09,467/- for AY 2018-19. 23.1 The assessee also filed an additional ground in ITA 13/Chny/2023 seeking permission to adjudicate the issue ... credit for TDS amounting to Rs.2,29,99,898/- for AY 2017-18 and submitted that though the said ground was raised before the Ld.CIT(A), which was omitted to be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Standing Counsel has no objection to admit the ground for adjudication

Matrix Security and Surveillance Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

ITA 206/HYD/2024[2022-2023]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23) Matrix Security & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Surveillance (P) Limited Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcm3902F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. E.V. Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. E.V. Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(1)

details with particulars of deduction for which A.Y said TDS pertains and also relevant credits in Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer/CPC cannot allow credit for TDS as claimed by the assessee in ITR filed for the relevant A.Y and therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee and upheld the assessment ... central govt. shall be given for the A.Y for which such income is assessable. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the credit for TDS should be allowed for the A.Y in which such income is assessed or assessable to tax irrespective of TDS credit available in Form No.26AS

Matrix Security and Survelliance Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

ITA 205/HYD/2024[2021-2022]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23) Matrix Security & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Surveillance (P) Limited Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcm3902F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. E.V. Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. E.V. Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(1)

details with particulars of deduction for which A.Y said TDS pertains and also relevant credits in Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer/CPC cannot allow credit for TDS as claimed by the assessee in ITR filed for the relevant A.Y and therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee and upheld the assessment ... central govt. shall be given for the A.Y for which such income is assessable. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the credit for TDS should be allowed for the A.Y in which such income is assessed or assessable to tax irrespective of TDS credit available in Form No.26AS

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

Year 2017-18 the assessee company e-filed its return of income on 24.11.2017 declaring total income at Nil with a claim for credit for TDS amounting to Rs.10,788/- and claimed exemption of Agricultural Income to the extent of Rs.87,39,282/-. The assessee company claimed the sale

ITO(E), Vadodara, Race Ciurse Vadodara vs. Takshshila Foundation(Ngo), Karelibaugh, Vadodara

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Gross receipts for Rs.1,69,96,054/- and raised demand of Rs.69,25,370/- including interest Rs. 10,58,885/- and after credit for TDS of Rs. 7,444/-. 2.2. The CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act concluding that the assessee failed to e-file

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3342/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

Rs.18,92,461/-. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the 8 1868 & 3342/Del/2023 AAPC Singapore Pte. Ltd., assessee and grant credit for TDS in accordance with law. Ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground no.5 of the appeal is against the levy of interest

Aapc Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1868/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 234ASection 270A

Rs.18,92,461/-. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the 8 1868 & 3342/Del/2023 AAPC Singapore Pte. Ltd., assessee and grant credit for TDS in accordance with law. Ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground no.5 of the appeal is against the levy of interest

Yashoda Puttaraju Jayanthkumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 830/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 249(3)

thus violating the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned assessing officer has disallowed the credit for TDS without corresponding reduction in the income on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That it is a settled proposition of law that

Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 203/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the assessing officer to grant credit for TDS of Rs. 9,08,06,937/- on the basis of tax deduction certificate issued by the diductors. 3. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified ... issued Form-16A as available in page 18 to 21 of the paper book submitted by the assessee. He therefore pleaded that the credit for TDS may be granted based on the original Form-16A available and produced before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 38. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied