← 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

M/S Kable First Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1695/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o

attention to page 158 of the PB where the details TDS credit claimed is given and submitted that the assessee has claimed credit for TDS in the entire invoice amount, but had offered only a portion as income which is not correct. The ld DR submitted that the assessee

M/S Kable First India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o

attention to page 158 of the PB where the details TDS credit claimed is given and submitted that the assessee has claimed credit for TDS in the entire invoice amount, but had offered only a portion as income which is not correct. The ld DR submitted that the assessee

Abarna & Ananthan, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 199(1)

assessee by CPC holding the return filed by the assessee to be defective. As per the said notice, the assessee had claimed credit for TDS, but the corresponding receipts / income had been omitted to be offered for taxation. The above omission was a defect as per clause ... correctly claimed the TDS of Rs. 46,52,284/-. However. as per the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 10.12.2019, the credit for TDS was restricted to Rs. 38,12,470/- without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 3. According to Ld. CIT(A), in the absence

Bates India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 43B

assessee on behalf of its clients from gross amount of billing as adopted by the AO for arriving at taxable income without giving credit for TDS]. Facts on the aforesaid grounds as noted by AO is as under: - 7. 3 A.Y. 2011-12 Bates India Pvt. Ltd. “On perusal

Atul Dushyant Lall, Mumbai vs. ITO 34 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2279/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(3)

rate prescribed in section 115BBE is also incorrect. Atul Dushyant Lall ITA No. 2279/Mum./2021 4. In the intimation u/s. 143(1), credit for TDS is granted only to the extent of Rs. 8,24,144 as against the appellant's claim of TDS credit of Rs.12,44,384. Your

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir -1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 14A

deposited by the deductor in subsequent year but if the income offered is in the current year the assessee should be granted credit for TDS in the year in which income is offered. He further stated that at page no. 66 of the Paper Book, assessee has given the working ... return of income. ₹48,90,44,563/- was allowed as credit by the learned Assessing Officer. Thus, there is a short credit of TDS of ₹2,93,74,400/-. A sum of ₹32,04,902/- is the TDS which did not appear in form no. 26AS of the assessee

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Cir-1(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 92/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 14A

deposited by the deductor in subsequent year but if the income offered is in the current year the assessee should be granted credit for TDS in the year in which income is offered. He further stated that at page no. 66 of the Paper Book, assessee has given the working ... return of income. ₹48,90,44,563/- was allowed as credit by the learned Assessing Officer. Thus, there is a short credit of TDS of ₹2,93,74,400/-. A sum of ₹32,04,902/- is the TDS which did not appear in form no. 26AS of the assessee

Eldelweiss Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 4(1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 15/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 14A

deposited by the deductor in subsequent year but if the income offered is in the current year the assessee should be granted credit for TDS in the year in which income is offered. He further stated that at page no. 66 of the Paper Book, assessee has given the working ... return of income. ₹48,90,44,563/- was allowed as credit by the learned Assessing Officer. Thus, there is a short credit of TDS of ₹2,93,74,400/-. A sum of ₹32,04,902/- is the TDS which did not appear in form no. 26AS of the assessee

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 179/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 40

Short grant of Tax Deducted at Source (`TDS') 5.1. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in restricting the credit for TDS only to the extent of granted only to the extent of INR 174,15,07,152 as against the INR 206,61,13,518 claimed

Purusottam Lenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 2146/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalpurusottam Lenka, C-603, Sanskrut Apartment, Raj Hans Cinema, Dumas Road, Surat, Gujarat-395007 Pan: Aampl1047J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (Cpc), Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Suresh Kabra, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Jagdish Jangid, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 27.01.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred On The Facts Of The Case & In Law By Not Allowing Credit Of Tds Deducted By The Employer But Not Deposited To Government Account. Nil. 2. Prayer 2.1 The Credit For Tds Rs. 1,55,610/- May Kindly Be Allowed. 2.2 Personal Hearing May Be Granted

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on the facts of the case and in law by not allowing credit of TDS deducted by the employer but not deposited to Government Account. Nil. 2. PRAYER 2.1 The Credit for TDS Rs. 1,55,610/- may kindly ... only Rs. 52,000/- and balance Rs. 1,55,610/- was not allowed on the ground that his employer has failed to credit the TDS to the Government Account and failed to file relevant TDS return. 4. Against this intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore under section

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 199

learned CIT Appeals NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by not giving credit for TDS amounting to Rs.4,35,31,200. 2 ITA Nos.118 & 119/Bang/2022. M/s.K.N.Dastur & Co. Pvt.Ltd. 3. The credit for taxes paid / TDS has been denied on unsustainable ... copies of assessment orders are placed on record), the AO invoked section 199 of the I.T.Act and allowed credit for TDS to the extent of income offered on turnover basis. By an order dated 30.05.2019 u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, the AO has determined TDS credit to the extent

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 199

learned CIT Appeals NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by not giving credit for TDS amounting to Rs.4,35,31,200. 2 ITA Nos.118 & 119/Bang/2022. M/s.K.N.Dastur & Co. Pvt.Ltd. 3. The credit for taxes paid / TDS has been denied on unsustainable ... copies of assessment orders are placed on record), the AO invoked section 199 of the I.T.Act and allowed credit for TDS to the extent of income offered on turnover basis. By an order dated 30.05.2019 u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, the AO has determined TDS credit to the extent

Mrm Solutions, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in AY 2018-19. The second issue relates to short credit of TDS amount. 2. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 03.10.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Ac, wherein ... made is accepted, subject to the statutory limitations, if any. 10. The next issue relates to the contention that the AO has granted credit for TDS at lower amount. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee claimed TDS amount of Rs.2,11,869/-, but the TDS credit has been given

Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in AY 2018-19. The second issue relates to short credit of TDS amount. 2. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 03.10.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Ac, wherein ... made is accepted, subject to the statutory limitations, if any. 10. The next issue relates to the contention that the AO has granted credit for TDS at lower amount. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee claimed TDS amount of Rs.5,26,453/-, but the TDS credit has been given

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 230/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Therefore, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Ground No. 3: (Short Credit of TDS) 5. The assessee submitted that CPC, Bangalore has given short credit for TDS of Rs.1,85,53,801/- as against credit of Rs.2 ... claimed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has directed the A.O to give credit of TDS deducted after verification of the claim of assessee. We don’t find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) and directed the A.O to allow he claim of TDS after verification

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Therefore, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Ground No. 3: (Short Credit of TDS) 5. The assessee claimed that CPC, Bangalore has given short credit for TDS of Rs.1,49,97,980/- as against credit of Rs.2

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

facts and allow the Appellant's claim in this regard. 9. Short grant of TDS credit a) That the AO erred in granting credit for TDS of only Rs. 110,883/- as against an amount of Rs. 6,259,186/- claimed by the Appellant in the return of income ... 319/Bang/2016 Ld.AO, further disallowed set off, of brought forward losses claimed by the assessee, and also did not grant full credit of TDS. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP directed as under: For SWD segment i. Turnover filter

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

facts and allow the Appellant's claim in this regard. 9. Short grant of TDS credit a) That the AO erred in granting credit for TDS of only Rs. 110,883/- as against an amount of Rs. 6,259,186/- claimed by the Appellant in the return of income ... 319/Bang/2016 Ld.AO, further disallowed set off, of brought forward losses claimed by the assessee, and also did not grant full credit of TDS. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP directed as under: For SWD segment i. Turnover filter

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

without appreciating the fact that the same is to be computed on the tax due on the returned income. 11. Short Credit of TDS/ TCS - Rs. 17,23,384 11.1. The learned AO has erred in granting credit of TDS / TCS of Rs. 24,02,13,490 as against

Insurekot Sports P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted The Facts Of The Case & Assessee’S Submission As Under :- “Assessee Has Availed Of A Franchiseeship Of Team Puneri Paltan Which Is A Participating Team In The Pro Kabaddi League Organized By Mashal Sports Private Limited. During Fy 2016 17 Ay 2017 18 It Received Prize Money Of Rs 3000000 Being The Third Placed Team Of The Event. The Same Is Accounted & Shown Under The Revenue From Operations As Prize Money. The Same Is 2 Insurekot Sports Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(ix)Section 56(2)(ib)

stage itself. There, therefore, is no defect in the action and it stands confirmed. Ground 5 This relates to the non-grant of credit for TDS by the AO. The AO is directed to verify the authenticity of this TDS by examining the TDS certificates and after checking from ... access to 26AS and if found to be correct then the amount qualifying for credit of TDS should be given. The ground is allowed for statistical purposes subject to verification by the AO.” 6. Against the above order assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both