← All Phrases

“tax deducted at source”

Chapter XVII - Collection & Recovery (TDS)Chapter XVII-BChapter XVII-B / Rule 26B / Rule 37BA(2)2,249 judgments

The decision most relied on for tax deducted at source is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), cited in 663 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tax deducted at source

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.
377 ITR 635 · 2015 · High Court
369
citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.
442 ITR 141 · 2022 · High Court
208
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with other co-operative banks, such as district or state co-operative banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, as it is considered income from other sources.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.
373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court
199
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 45 · 2015 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made when the assessee has deducted tax at a lesser rate, as opposed to no deduction. The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable retrospectively, mitigating disallowance where tax is deposited by the recipient.

Judgments citing tax deducted at source

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

facts, in considering INR 57,30,832 as a refund issued to the Appellant without appreciating that this amount pertains to tax deducted at source on interest on income-tax refund which is pending to be issued to the Appellant, and thereby has erred in raising a tax demand

Mahesh Prakash Bende, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

reflected in the salary certificate in Form No. 16 be allowed while computing the income under the head “Salary”; (iii) that credit of tax deducted at source, as appearing in Form 26AS, be duly granted to the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, the learned AR prayed that

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

Appellant during the hearings and no opportunity of being heard was granted to the Appellant. 5. Ground 5: Short grant of Tax Deducted at Source of Rs. 1,08,275/- The Ld. AO/Ld. DRP erred in granting credit of TDS of Rs. 1,24,82,097/- as against

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

hold that no interest under section 234B of the Act can be levied where the payment to non-resident payee is subject to tax deduction at source. In the present case, the Assessing Officer himself had admitted by grossing up the ECB interest by the amount of tax borne ... interest and interest u/s 234B is also not chargeable since ECB interest received by the assessee from the borrowers was subject to tax deduction at source u/s 195 of the Act. The Assessing Office is thus directed t delete the addition made on account of interest received from ECB given

Shiv Extrusion, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 250

interest under Section 2348 (Rs. 2,11,044/-). The net tax liability assessed (Rs. 3,27,451/-) was fully covered by the available Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit allowed (Rs. 3,41,378/- Hence, the charging of interest under Section 2348 is illegal, notwithstanding its consequential nature. 9. Leave

Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1292/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 68

assessee. The legal position u/s 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules is clear that credit for tax deducted at source is to Page 13 of 15 be granted in the year in which the corresponding income is assessable to tax

Akash Somany, Khol Road, Kund, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshakash Somany, Vs. Ito, Khol Road, Kund, Rewari, Rewari Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aknps7897J Assessee By : Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Shri Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

returns along with reconciliation of receipts/ income reported therein with the ITR. The Assessee was also directed to give party wise breakup of tax deducted at source by him on all expenses debited to profit and loss account and proof of payment of all the expenses, mode of payment, copy

Dharti Foundation, Sabarkantha vs. The Dy.DIT, CPC Present Juris. the ITO, Exemption, Palanpur

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

ITA 2250/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2250/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2022-2023 Dharti Foundation, The Deputy Director Of बनामVs. B/H Kheti Bank, Income Tax, Cpc Chhapariya Char Rasta, Present Jurisdiction, Himatnagar-383001, The Income Tax Officer, Sabarkantha. (Exemption), Palanpur.

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ASection 194CSection 199(2)

appeal on this ground is therefore dismissed…” 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee produced a detailed chart showing the particulars of tax deducted at source by various deductors during the relevant previous year. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the TDS claimed by the assessee in the return of income

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

observed that the total consideration mentioned therein for the purchase of the property was Rs.3,01,77,700/-, on which Tax Deducted at Source u/s.194-IA of the Act amounting to Rs.3,01,777/- had been duly deposited. The AO further noted that the assessee had incurred registration charges and stamp

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

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

ITA 2544/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(via)

same in the assessment order. The interest levied u/s.234B of Rs.48,16,53,432/- and 234C of Rs.75,64,309/-, credit for tax deducted at source, incorrect tax computation and the consequent demand raised were also contested by the assessee to be incorrect. 8. The assessee made detailed submissions

Nobel Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2009/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: 19.01.2026
Section 143(3)Section 40

claim of deduction u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,92,74,575/-, the statutory scheme clearly provides that where tax deducted at source has been subsequently paid to the credit of the Central Government, the corresponding expenditure, which was disallowed in earlier years, becomes allowable

Surendra Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8536/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

under Section 115BBF of the Act as claimed by the Assessee. Further the Assessing Officer-CPC also failed to grant credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR.72,000/-. 4. On 15/02/2025 the Assessee filed Form 3CFA for the Assessment Year 2 Assessment Year

Solutions Infini Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1381/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No. 2 relates to the short grant of credit of tax deducted at source. 15. The relevant facts are that the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act resulted in short grant of TDS credit ... perused the materials available on record. We note that the grievance of the assessee relates to the short grant of credit for tax deducted at source while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has already directed the AO to verify

Mrigesh Gaurav, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)(ii)

processed by the CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act on 04.11.2019. In the said intimation, the CPC granted credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 1,62,025/- as against TDS of Rs. 24,75,737/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income ... account of short grant of TDS credit while processing the return under section 143(1). It is well settled that credit of tax deducted at source is to be granted in accordance with section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA, subject to verification of the corresponding income

ACIT CC 4 3, Mumbai vs. Maersk Line India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6166/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 206ASection 250Section 40Section 80G

allowed as deduction in the year under consideration. In support of its submission, the learned AR referred to TDS certificates in respect of tax deducted at source on payments made to various parties, which form part of the paper book. We find that the details of tax deducted at source

M/S Jil Information Technology Limited, New Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 363/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

payment. Therefore, the addition was deserving of being quashed. Finally, the assessee submitted that the AO had failed to allow full credit for tax deducted at source which were supported by the online 26AS statement and a short credit of Rs. 91,430/- had been allowed. Accordingly, it was prayed

Health Biotech Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

wherein additions were made, inter alia, on account of disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deposit of tax deducted at source within the prescribed time and disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on assets funded by capital subsidy. Consequent to these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2195/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

because the assessee's wife did not furnish declaration to the bank in terms of proviso to rule 37BA(2), the amount of tax deducted at source, which is otherwise with the Department, cannot be allowed to remain with it eternally without allowing any corresponding credit to the person ... been subjected to tax in respect of such income. As the substantive provision of section 199 talks of granting credit for tax deducted at source to the other person, who is lawfully taxable in respect of such income, we are satisfied that the matching credit for tax deducted at source

Oragadam City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(1), Chennai

In the result, Addition u/s

ITA 2173/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: MR. R. Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

brought to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources.” Additionally, disallowances were made u/s.40(a)(ia) and 43B for failure to remit tax deducted at source within the stipulated time and Oragadam City Developers Pvt Ltd(Vs.) ITO CW5(1) :: 4 :: for unpaid statutory liabilities, respectively. The reassessment proceedings ... Rs.2,41,899/- u/s. 43B towards unpaid statutory dues; and (iii) Rs.87,28,220/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-remittance of tax deducted at source within the prescribed time. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the additions. Hence, the present appeal