“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

Tata Consumer Products Limited (Successor of Tata Coffee Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2636/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 438Section 43BSection 80MSection 928Section 92B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Acqueon Technologies Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1805/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(3)

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd v. CIT. Further, the Id.CIT(A) observed that the credit for TDS as appearing in Form 26AS of the assessee was Rs.2,80,39,740/-, whereas AO has granted credit only for an amount of Rs.2 ... resulting in short credit of Rs.75,64,754/-. The Id.CIT(A), thus directed the AO to grant credit for TDS of Rs.2,80,39,740/- as per Form 26AS of the assessee. 5. Against the relief given by the Id.CIT(A) relating to grant of short credit of TDS

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

profits u/s.115JB - Ground No. 4. 1. to 4.3 (v) Disallowance of depreciation claimed on assets given on finance lease - Ground No.5 (vi) Short Credit for TDS - Ground No.6 (vii) Levy of interest and penalty - Ground No. 7 2. The assessee is a company incorporated on 18.01.2001 and is a subsidiary ... amount is an allowable deduction since the assessee is neither able to recover the amount from the customers nor able to claim credit for TDS without certificate. The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee stating that allowing the claim of the assessee would amount to allowing deduction towards income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails on the sole

ITA 1251/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Rao, AR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41(1)

income and determination of tax liability of Rs.14,50,21,633/- inclusive of tax and interest under sections 234B and 234C, after giving credit for TDS. 2.4 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised grounds challenging

Deepak Parekh, Usa vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. JCIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (CPC) denying credit of TDS of Rs. 14,59,120~ deducted in the hands of the spouse of the appellant, citing non-compliance of rule 37BA(2), when the entire ... intimation passed u/S 143(1) is bad in law, patently wrong and the Assessing Officer (CPC) may be directed to give balance credit of TDS of Rs. 14,59,120~ being TDS deducted of spouse, to the appellant. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1158/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2014-15 Dreams Belle Vue, 3Rd Floor, City Mall, University Road, Ganeshkind, Maharashtra-411007, Pan: Aaaad9013B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-2(1), Pune Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Kishor B Phadke Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore 01-09-2025 30-09-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2016-17 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. There Is A Delay Of 383 & 375 Days Respectively In Filing Of These Appeals Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Along With Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

submissions made without addressing the grounds raised by the appellant, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. 3. The Appellant submits that credit for TDS amounting to Rs.3,42,744 ought to be granted either to the Appellant AOP or, in the alternative, to the respective members who have duly

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Pune

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

ITA 1157/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Antaash Sheikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 9

page 107. He further submitted Page 3 of 5 that merely because the employer has not paid tax after deducting the same, the credit for TDS could not be denied in the hands of the assessee. 6. The ld. DR vehemently objected to the same and stated that when

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

cess on total income except interest on income-tax refund without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Short granting of credit for TDS 13. Erred in not granting the TDS credit of Rs. 7,46, 161 without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Interest under section ... rates as applicable. 10. Ground No. 13: Short grant of TDS – Rs. 7,46,161/- . It is contended by Ld.AR that credit of TDS has not been granted to the extent of Rs. 7,46,161/-. The assessee has filed a rectification application on 14/03/2023 alongwith form 26AS and reconciliation

Shri Jamanlal N Gulati HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4691/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

impunged disallowance are wrong and contrary to the provisions of law. 7. The learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in not allowing credit for TDS at Rs.1, 10, 164/- No reason has been assigned for the same. 8. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law & judicial

Nanasaheb Bhagawan Sasar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 722/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ASection 234A

gross receipts shown in Form 26AS being higher than the total of the receipts shown under all heads of income on which credit for TDS has been claimed in the return of income filed. The assessee filed its response to the said defective notice categorically stating that, "the sales figure ... income and has paid the taxes without claiming the TDS of his share.  The form 26AS of the appellant clearly disclosed the credit of TDS in the name of the appellant. 4. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of the grounds of appeal

Eastern Shipping Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosaineastern Shipping Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 6(2)(1) Godrej Coliseum, Office No. Aayakar Bhavan 801, 8Th Floor, C Wing, Of Mumbai Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai – 400022. Pan/Gir No. Aahce1084E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

complied with and not when such procedure has not been complied with, in which case the payee ought to continue to get the credit for TDS based on entry in Form 26AS. 5. The Learned CIT (A) erred in not considering appellant's submissions where it was mentioned that ... profit and loss account and by way of an accounting (journal) entry is transferred to Balance Sheet item and hence entire credit of TDS as claimed ought to be granted to the appellant. 7. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the business model of the appellant and the established

Rakesh Kumar Bhutoria, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 368/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO(CPC) in denying the credit of TDS to the tune of Rs.3,15,923/- deducted against the salary paid by Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited. I.T.A. No.: 368/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rakesh ... facts filed in Form No. 35 are as under: “I had filed my return of income for the AY 2021-22 claiming credit for TDS on Salary amounting to 56,80,974/- but while processing the return by CPC credit for TDS on Salary was allowed only

U Games Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaru Games Private Limited, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Tower 4, Central B Wing, 5 Th बनाम 13(1)(1), 225, Aaykar Floor, Nesco It Park, Nesco Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Centre, Western Express Road, Mumbai–400020, Highway, Goregaon (East), Maharashtra Mumbai –400 063, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccu7582L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 244A

ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred: 1. Ground No. 1: Erred in concluding that Appellant is not eligible to avail the credit of TDS over and above reported in Form 26AS On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. 1.1. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in concluding that ... Appellant is not eligible to avail the credit of TDS over and above reported in Form 26AS without considering the fact that: 1.1.1. credit of TDS could not be denied merely as the same did not reflect in the Form 26AS of the Appellant. 1.1.2. the Appellant has offered

Nararshabh Sharma, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 7(3), Pune, Aayakar Sadan Pune

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

ITA 1530/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia-JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140BSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80T

under Chapter- VIA claimed at Rs. 1,60,000/-, the total taxable income is shown at Rs. 31,66,540/- and the tax credit for TDS has been claimed at Rs. 7,23,740/-. This return has been filed on 07/09/2023 after due date and the same could

Lowes Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1734/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

grievance that MAT credit of Rs.2,25,79,720 was not granted to the assessee and further as per ground No.7 credit for TDS of Rs.2,35,452 was denied. 24. After hearing both the parties, we direct the ld. AO to verify the above facts and grant MAT credit ... well as credit for TDS in accordance with law. 25. As per ground No.8 assessee has challenged the action of the AO in disallowing deduction of Rs.76,48,794 u/s. 80G of the Act. 26. The brief facts show that during the year, assessee has contributed Rs.1

Naseem Ahmed, Greater Noida vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 658/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmanaseem Ahmed, Income Tax Officer, Vill: Haldouni, Post Kuleshra, Ward-2(3), Greater Noida,Gautambudh Vs. Noida Nagar, U.P.201306. Pan-Aijpa1555F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Raghu Raj Singh, Adv. & Shri Vijay Singhla, Ca. Department By Shridheeraj Kumar Jain,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of Order Dated 09.12.2019 Made By Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S 147Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Of Rs.2,35,000/- & Had Also Claimed Credit For Tds Of Rs.9,13,823/- The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice 148 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information In Possession Of The Department That The Assessee Had Received Interest On Enhanced Compensation Of Rs.8,84,023/- From New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) During The Financial Year 2015-16, Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Which Tds Of Rs.8,84,023/- Was Deducted By The Authority. The Assessee Had Filed Return But Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Amount Of Rs.88,40,230/- Was In The Nature Of Interest

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 145BSection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income of Rs.2,35,000/- and had also claimed credit for TDS of Rs.9,13,823/- The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice 148 of the Act on the basis of information in possession

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.507/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Acit, P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Circle-1, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajamahendravaram. District, Andhra Pradesh-534102. Pan: Aaacf 2643 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Suvibha Nolkha, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Suvibha Nolkha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 154Section 250

which was remitted to the Government account during the subsequent A.Y. Thus, the assessee lost the opportunity to claim the credit for TDS since it was not appearing in Form 26AS for the A.Y. 2018-19 at the time of filing the return of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1649/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1649/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Idfc Limited, Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. Krm Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CA

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 260A

assessee had received income from investments made with various ‘venture capital funds’ (VCFs). As against income declared from these VCFs, assessee had claimed credit for TDS stating that VCFs have made TDS on behalf of the assessee as a beneficiary. However, the claim of the assessee was rejected

Ajit Dayal Lalvani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4350/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish RankaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan

A.Ys.2023-24 & 2024-25) Mr. Ajit Dayal Lalvani vs. ITO income, the Centralized Processing Centre (‘CPC’ for short) did not grant credit for TDS as such TDS was not reflected in Form 26AS. 4. Being aggrieved with non-grant of TDS, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First ... Appellate Authority. 5. However, while deciding the appeal, learned First Appellate Authority did not allow credit for TDS, but directed the A.O. to allow the TDS credit only after ensuring that the deductor had filed the correct statement and the TDS credit gets reflected in the PAN of the assessee