“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

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

passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. The Assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for various quarters in Form No.26Q for different quarterly years in FY 2012-13 to 2014-15 ( relevant ... Nos.163 to 170/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 11 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.K.Khare & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 230/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhb.K. Khare & Co. Vs. Acit 16(2), 706/708 Sharda 4Th Floor, Chambers, New Marine Aaykar Bhavan, Line, Churchgate, M.K. Road, 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafb0265E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

allow he claim of TDS after verification of the corresponding income as per the books of account of the assessee and tax deducted at source. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

directions have held that IT support services would not fall under Royalty'; Short granting of credit for Tax Deducted at source (TDS) 8. Erred in not granting the TDS credit of Rs. 6,50,837. Interest under section 234B of the Act 9. Erred in levying interest under section 234B

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

order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, dated 08.07.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 2. The assessee filed statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) for Q2 to Q4 quarters in Form No.24Q & 26Q for FY 2012-13 (AY 2013- 14). The statement was processed ... section 200 or the proviso to sub-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

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 200 or the proviso to sub-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 ... tax deducted at source (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source, or a correction statement, has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the sums

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

reconciliation, it was seen that the Appellant had not offered certain receipts to tax during the relevant Assessment Year but had claimed tax deducted at source in respect of the same. This resulted in excess claim of tax deducted at source of INR 32,689/- which was disallowed ... noticed that the Appellant had received INR 7,33,362/- from Birla Life Insurance Company Ltd. on surrender of insurance policy. Credit of tax deducted at source by Birla Life Insurance Company Ltd. in respect of the same was claimed by the Appellant but the corresponding receipt was not offered

M/S. Invendis Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 90Section 91

source. (iii) The rate of tax in Ghana being lower than the Indian rate of tax, claimed tax credit for the entire tax deducted at source. Thus, in the computation an amount of Rs.1,05,36,759 was claimed as a deduction u/s.91 of the Act as per the computation

Shri Sanjay Gopal Pandit, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1902/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrio.P. Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)Section 250

w.e.f. 01.06.2015, whereby the A.O. was enabled to compute the fee under section 234E of the Act while processing of statement of tax deducted at source, is prospective in nature has came up for adjudication before the Hon’ble High Courts of various States. The first decision was rendered

Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 400/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. T Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT DR

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(3)

time limit for passing of an order u/s. 201(1) of the Act in a case where statement of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 of the Act was not filed by the deductor, the same was thereafter extended vide the Finance Act, 2012 from 4 years as was earlier ... deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, in a case where a statement of tax deducted at source u/s. 200 of the Act was filed by the deductor remained unchanged i.e. 2 years as was earlier provided on the statute vide

M/S. Gia India Laboratories Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgia India Laboratory Pvt. Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Ltd., 10Th Floor, Trade Bangalore, Centre, Bandra Kurla 560500 Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg9457G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

directed to delete the disallowance so made and to re-compute its total income accordingly. 2: 0 Re.: Short grant of credit for tax deducted at source of Rs. 62,033/- :- 2 : 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in non-adjudicating the ground of appeal raised before ... that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject it is entitled to full credit of tax deducted at source from its income. 2 : 3 The Appellant submits that the CPC-Bangalore/Assessing Officer be directed to grant full credit for tax deducted

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1718/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Section 101ASection 143(3)Section 2(9)Section 3Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

ground Nos. 6 to 9 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. The ground No.11 raised by the assessee is seeking credit for tax deducted at source. 6.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AO had not granted

Govershan Venture Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 181/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 271H

only issue arising in these appeals is, whether fee under section 234E of the Act can be levied while processing of statements of tax deducted at source under section 200A(1) of the Act for the period prior to 1st June 2015, and thus whether clause (c) to section 200A ... statements or furnishing incorrect information in such statements. Further, section 200A of the Act deals with the provisions for processing of statements of tax deducted at source. Till substitution, inter–alia, of clause (c) to section 200A(1) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1st June 2015, there was no provision

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

liable to pay tax, interest and penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions which deal with tax deduction at source, without any reference to chargeability to tax under the Act of the non-resident assessee. This section is similar to sections ... Income-tax Act, 1961 thereby making it incumbent upon all such persons to deduct tax at source and pay such tax deductible at source under section. 195 of the Act; Held, (i) that in all these cases, the licence" that was granted under the end- user licence agreement