“credit for TDS”

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

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

Punit Deora Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Appellant trust as it amounts to double taxation of the very same income. 7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming non granting of credit for TDS deducted out of 'House Property' income although reflected in 26AS. Income being taxable in individual hands of the beneficiaries TDS is prayed ... taken such credit and there is no dispute by the department that the original deductee is never going to take the credit of TDS, then if deductor for some reason fails to report the tax deduction in the name of the other person; or does not issue the certificate

Shashi Prabhu & Associates, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shashi Prabhu & Associates Assistant Commissioner Of C Wankhede Stadium, Income Tax, Mumbai D-Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - Vs. 400020 (Pan : Aaafs3813K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis,Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Kolkata, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073259510(1), Dated 13.02.2025 Passed Against Intimation By Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 09.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Granting Tds Credit Of Rs. 91,57,596/- Only As Against Rs. 1,31,74,662/- Claimed In The Income Tax Return Resulting In Short Granting Of Tds Credit On A Incorrect Assumption Of Fact That The Tds Credit Of Rs. 39,38,139 Had Already Been Allowed To Appellant Firm In Ay 2016-17, Which Is Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made There Under.

TDS of RS. 39,38,139/- was made by the appellant the Ld. AO. CPC nor has Ld. AO. CPC granted the said credit of TDS of Rs. 39,38,139/- in AY 2016-17. (iii) Though the TDS was deducted in previous year AY 2016-17, merely since ... According to the assessee the income relating to this was offered to tax during AY 2017-18. It is eligible to claim the credit of TDS in the year under consideration even though the deduction appeared in Form No. 26AS for AY 2016-17. Assessee furnished a reconciliation in respect

Sonali Dhawan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

submitted that the assessee thereafter filed her return of income, disclosing the capital gains on sale of the said property and has claimed credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 48 lakhs. It was submitted that the return of income was processed by the CPC and in the intimation issued ... mismatch with Form 26AS and Form-26AS contains only partial amount of TDS and, therefore, the assessee has been denied the credit of TDS so claimed in the return of income. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that firstly, the TDS has not just been deducted, but the same

Ghumli Shipping Agents Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainghumli Shipping Agents Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1)(3) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 32, 7Th Floor, Bldg Mumbai. No. 3, Tata Mills Hsg, Society, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aahcg4357J (Applicant) (Respondent)

notice issued under section 139 (9) of the Act. The appellant opposes the action of the CPC, Bangalore in restricting the credit for TDS by adopting a proportionate formula based on the gross receipts appearing in the Form 26AS vis a vis the gross receipts reflecting in the income ... under section 234 C amounting to Rs. 1,15,569/-. This interest is arising solely on account of granting of short credit of TDS. 11. The appellant objects to the making of adjustment in the intimation issued under section 143 (1) of the Act without providing a reasonable opportunity

Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

allowed. 15. Ground nos.5 and 6 are in respect of non-granting of credit u/s. 115JAA and short granting of credit for TDS claimed by the assessee in its return. These claims are subject matter of verification and examination of the relevant records by the ld. AO. Accordingly, we direct

Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

allowed. 15. Ground nos.5 and 6 are in respect of non-granting of credit u/s. 115JAA and short granting of credit for TDS claimed by the assessee in its return. These claims are subject matter of verification and examination of the relevant records by the ld. AO. Accordingly, we direct

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

without appreciating the fact that receipts towards IT support services are not for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience; Short granting of credit for TDS 9. Erred in not granting the TDS credit of Rs.2,06,98,133 without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. Interest under