← All Phrases

“tax collected at source”

Chapter XVII - Collection & Recovery (TCS)Chapter XVII-BBChapter XVII-BB / Rule 26B / Rule 31AA / Rule 37-I305 judgments

The decision most relied on for tax collected at source is Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT (116 ITD 301), cited in 46 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tax collected at source

Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. DCIT
116 ITD 301 · 2009 · ITAT
46
citing judgments

The case is cited for its relevance to provisions concerning Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS), particularly in relation to amendments introduced by the Finance Bill, 2012, including Section 234E.

Toyo Engg. India Ltd. v. JCIT
5 SOT 616 · 2006 · ITAT
28
citing judgments

Tax deducted at source (TDS) is a method of collection, not a levy of tax. Credit for TDS can be granted even if the corresponding income is not yet assessable, as long as the assessee follows a consistent method of accounting.

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Eli Lilly and Company (India) Private Ltd.
15 SCC 1 · 2009 · Reported
23
citing judgments

Income tax is deductible at source under Section 4(2) and Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where a sum paid to a non-resident is chargeable to tax. These sections are part of the machinery provisions for the collection and recovery of tax.

CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd.
323 ITR 230 · 2010 · High Court
23
citing judgments

An order for default committed under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year. This limitation period is considered reasonable, similar to Section 201(3) concerning tax deduction at source.

CIT v. Kalyani Steels Ltd.
91 Taxmann.com 359 · 2018 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Tax is not deductible at source if there is no income embedded in a payment. TDS is merely an alternative method for tax collection.

CIT v. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd.
362 ITR 233 · 2014 · High Court
14
citing judgments

A technical breach of filing a statutory form, such as Form 27C, can be condoned. No liability under section 206C(6A) or 206C(7) can be fastened on the assessee if the statutory form is filed, even if not furnished in time.

DIT(E) v. Sri Belimatha Mahasamsthana Socio Cultural and Educational Trust
336 ITR 694 · 2012 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act is not warranted if donations collected by an educational trust are not challenged by authorities and the source of corpus donations is duly proved.

ITO v. Mega Collections (p.) Ltd.
151 Taxmann.com 403 · 2023 · Reported
12
citing judgments

Loan transactions cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 if the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors by submitting their PAN, address, income tax returns, audited financial statements, and bank statements, and also proves the source of source.

Judgments citing tax collected at source

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed application u/s.154

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed application u/s.154

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed application u/s.154

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed application u/s.154

Jayaprakash Rai, Sullia vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 681/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Jayaprakasha Rai, The Dcit, Vs. H. No. 4-110 Amara Mundur, Cpc, Chokkadi, Sullia, Bengaluru. Karnataka – 574 212. Pan : Alvpr 4846 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 206CSection 206C(4)

excise licence of Mrs. Pramila P. Rai. 3. In terms of section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), Tax Collection at Source (TCS) was made by KSBCL of Rs.1,39,296/-. The assessee claimed credit for TCS in the return of income filed for Assessment ... accordance with the rules as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. " Rule 37-I reads as under: "Credit for tax collected at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance with provisions of section 206C of the Act, shall be given to the person from

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 170/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 169/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 168/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 167/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 166/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 165/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 164/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society(Previously Known As Madanthyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Madanthyar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 163/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before

M/S. Vth Source Components Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee filed appeals before

Lekhraj Corp P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-Centreal Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 788/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Lekhraj Corporation Acit 2(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Central Processing Cell- (Managing Partner – Shri Tds, Sanjeev Rajan Lekhraj), Aayakar Bhavan, Galaf, Sidhwa House, Vs. Sector – 3, Old Bmp Bldg., Vaishali, N.A. Sawant Road, Ghaziabad, Colaba, U.P. – 201010 Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aaccl3194P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mukesh B. Advani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S.N. Kabra. Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 08 . 04 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, M/S. Lekhraj Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessee’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 15.03.2021 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2014-15 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Erred In Confirming The Late Fees Charged U/S 234-E Of The Income Tax Act-1961 Amounting To Rs.1,07,800/- (I.E. Rs.44,200/- In Respect Of 26Q & Rs.63,600/- In Respect To 24Q) For Late Filing Of Tds Quarterly Statements For 1St

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh B. Advani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra. Sr. A.R
Section 200Section 200ASection 234Section 234BSection 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012 200A: Processing of statements of tax deducted at source (1) Where

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)

determined after adjustment of the tax [interest and fee], if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section

Kooud Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2022[2013-14 (24Q-QII)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012. Xxxxxxxxxx" 18. The aforesaid shows that in the clause

Rashmi Subhash Jha, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 782/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 90Section 90ASection 91

determined after adjustment of the tax 85[, interest and fee], if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section

District Mining Officer, Shamli vs. ITO (TDS), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 7537/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)

contractors persons. In view of the submission of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ and levied tax collected at source (TCS) at the rate of the 2% and interest thereon in terms of section 206C(7) of the Act for the period

District Mining Officer, Shamli vs. ITO (TDS), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 7536/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)

contractors persons. In view of the submission of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ and levied tax collected at source (TCS) at the rate of the 2% and interest thereon in terms of section 206C(7) of the Act for the period