← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Panvel Circle Panvel, Panvel vs. Gateway Terminals India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue and the three COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 692/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Rajesh P Gawali
Section 143(1)Section 199

higher than the revenue reported in financials and the return of income. It was argued that the assessee is eligible for full credit for TDS of Rs.14,97,56,442/- as reflected in Form 26AS since the revenue shown in the financials are more than the revenue reflected in Form ... dated 143(1) of the Act dated 22.09.2022 is erroneous and not sustainable. He however, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full credit of TDS of Rs.14,97,56,442/- as reflected in Form 26AS after due verification of proper TDS and also to verify as to whether

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Panvel Circle Panvel, Panvel vs. Gateway Terminals India Pvt Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue and the three COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 691/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Rajesh P Gawali
Section 143(1)Section 199

higher than the revenue reported in financials and the return of income. It was argued that the assessee is eligible for full credit for TDS of Rs.14,97,56,442/- as reflected in Form 26AS since the revenue shown in the financials are more than the revenue reflected in Form ... dated 143(1) of the Act dated 22.09.2022 is erroneous and not sustainable. He however, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full credit of TDS of Rs.14,97,56,442/- as reflected in Form 26AS after due verification of proper TDS and also to verify as to whether

Sidhesh Mohan Raikar, Nashik vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Banglore

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

ITA 294/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahkar
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 5A

given case because there is no reference of application of Section 5A of the Act. He thus concluded that the remaining credit of TDS of ₹10,36,269/- may please be allowed to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT ... Form 26AS from various 2,33,06,642 deductors (amounts appearing against TCS and 194N are not receipts, hence omitted) 03 Credit of TDS claimed in the return 1,72,72,325 TDS credit allowable as per Rule 37BA1/2*3 33,55,983 Note : TDS credit, as restricted under Rule

Sikha Rani De, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1750/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

1750/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sikha Rani De. assessee with the assessee getting only rental income. The Ld. DR stated that the credit for TDS was given to the assessee and, therefore, the income was enhanced. The assessee has filed a paper book containing statement of deposit excluding TDS

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Nivedan Fin-Invest Lease Ltd., Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1713/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

have been received during the year which was included in the total income of the assessee as per its audited account. Credit for TDS made by the said borrower was claimed and allowed (iii) Rakesh Kumar individual to whom a loan of Rs 1,50.00.000/- has been granted ... interest income of Rs. 49,55,000 was received during the year which has been included in the audited accounts of the assessee Credit for TDS deducted was claimed and allowed 11 (iv) Vibhor Vaibhav Infra Home (P) Ltd. - Rs. 5 Crores have been granted in the earlier year

Pankaj Sujoria, Mansarovar Colony vs. ITO 1(1), Gwl, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 323/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is challenging the action of the lower authorities in not granting the credit for TDS of Rs 32,318/-. Pankaj Sujoria 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. I find that the Assessee ... Form 26AS of the Assessee. While doing so, the Learned AO did not give credit of TDS on salary of Rs. 32,318/- which is duly reflected in the very same Form 26AS of the Assessee. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned NFAC endorsing

Daiwa Capital Markets India Private Limited, Lower Parel vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5338/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandaiwa Capital Markets India Acit Circle 4(1)(1), Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Office No. N10 & N11, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dextrus-Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Mumbai-400 020 Corporate Park, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aaccd7178B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), further, fell in error of law in upholding the view of the Ld. A.O. in denying the credit for TDS merely on technical grounds without appreciating that TDS was claimed on the basis of Form No. 26AS/AIS report uploaded by the department ... orders of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) submitted that assessee has not followed the rule and procedure for claiming credit of TDS as the same was never claimed in the ITR which was the requirement of law/ Income Tax Rules and the same has been claimed after

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

this TDS of Rs.53,09,375/- has been deducted by the payer. Further he submitted that the AO has also not granted credit for TDS of Rs.53,09,375/- deducted by IFFCO which is dully reflected on the 6 department’s portal. He also relied upon written submissions filed

Ador Welding Limited (Successor of Ador Fontech Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set-aside the order of the Ld

ITA 3338/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2021-22 Ador Welding Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor Of Ador Fontech Limited), Income Tax, Ador House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), 6 K Dubash Marg, Fort, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaaca9076B Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

deleted. 10 20. Coming to the issue of short grant of TDS credit, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO has erred in granting credit for TDS amounting to Rs.42,07,957/- instead of Rs.42,32,957/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income and prayed that the entire

Abdul Rahman Asad, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2433/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Abdul Rahman Asad, Vs. Dcit, House No.47, Behind Jain Mandi, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Mohalla Barihat, New Delhi. Bahraich – 271 801 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aofpa6981F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Is A Non-Resident & Filed The Original Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 27.07.2022 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.4,86,560/- (Income From House Property Rs.4,64,444/-, Income From Other Sources Rs.32,115/- & Loss From Long

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 199

claimed the prepaid tax of Rs..21,60,112/- against the total tax payable of Rs.12,301/-. While processing the return of income credit of TDS was allowed of Rs.60,872/- against the claim of prepaid taxes of Rs.21,60,112/- in his return of income ... allowed the credit of TDS of Rs.20,99,240/- which was deducted/deposited on sale of the immovable property by the buyer of the property. 3. Aggrieved the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), Delhi-42 and assessee filed detailed submissions before

Ranjit Singh, Panchkula vs. Deputy Director, CPC Department

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable

Labh Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No 2, Panchkula

ITA 725/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable

Bhupinder Singh, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, W-1, Ambala

ITA 528/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable

Sh. Hakam Singh, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 486/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable

Balbir Singh, Sirsa, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

ITA 483/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat 17 the interest

Bishan Chand, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (5), Chandigarh

ITA 458/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable

Sat Pal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

ITA 243/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable

Narender Kaur, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kurukshetra

ITA 165/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

examined the submissions and found that, although the assessee claimed exemption on the interest component in the revised return, he continued to claim credit for TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable