← 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

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Retail Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Aditya Birla Finance Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 96/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Retail Co. Ltd. (Now Merged With Bhavan, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle-2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S Madura Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Garments & Lifestyle Retail Bhavan, M.K. Road, Company Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ars Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

26AS is being prepared by the Income Tax Department on the basis of information gathered from various sources including quarterly return of tax deducted at source (TDS) filed by the tax deductors. In the said form no 26AS which is maintained in respect of each assessee, the amount

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

assessee shall be 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

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

from certain non-resident freelancers and made payment of Rs 20,56,737 for the services rendered by them and has not deducted Tax Deducted at Source (`I-DS') by invoking provisions of the Article 14 and Article 15 of the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (`DTAA') and India

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

from certain non-resident freelancers and made payment of Rs 20,56,737 for the services rendered by them and has not deducted Tax Deducted at Source (`I-DS') by invoking provisions of the Article 14 and Article 15 of the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (`DTAA') and India

Galleria Condominium Association, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

ITA 1053/DEL/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4(5)

mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source under Section1941, 194A, 194J and 194C, amount Rs. 3,90,843/- as per computation, which is attached as Annexure-B and 26AS which ... deduction of common expenses incurred from the rental income received from house property has not been provided and also the fact that tax deducted at source has not been given due credit of. It appears that due to non-cooperation by the erstwhile management of the association and internal disputes

Galleria Condominium Association, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

ITA 1052/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4(5)

mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source under Section1941, 194A, 194J and 194C, amount Rs. 3,90,843/- as per computation, which is attached as Annexure-B and 26AS which ... deduction of common expenses incurred from the rental income received from house property has not been provided and also the fact that tax deducted at source has not been given due credit of. It appears that due to non-cooperation by the erstwhile management of the association and internal disputes

Galleria Condominium Association, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

ITA 1038/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250Section 4(5)

mutuality. Page 5 of 10 6. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as Assessing Officer not take effect of Tax deducted at source under Section1941, 194A, 194J and 194C, amount Rs. 3,90,843/- as per computation, which is attached as Annexure-B and 26AS which ... deduction of common expenses incurred from the rental income received from house property has not been provided and also the fact that tax deducted at source has not been given due credit of. It appears that due to non-cooperation by the erstwhile management of the association and internal disputes

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

various airlines and has claimed a refund of Rs. Travelport International Operations Limited vs ACIT 10 9,68,98,320/- on account of tax deducted at source (TDS) by the participating carriers. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In response to statutory notices issued

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

learned JAO / transfer pricing order issued by the learned TPO and confirming the draft assessment order. 13. Non grant of credit for entire Tax Deducted at Source (`TDS') 13.1. The NeAC has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for the entire TDS of INR 554.53.87.685 claimed

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned AO erred in not considering the credit for Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting ... ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit of tax deducted at source. In this regard, the A.O. is directed to give corresponding TDS credit to the assessee. 28. ground Nos.13 & 14 are consequential in nature

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction at source. However the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on the same. When this issue was confronted by the AO, the assessee contended ... year. The following are the contents of the said letter (copy filed by DR in Court), in so far as it relates to taxes deductible at source. "3. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT the assessee company took the same plea that it had deducted

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned AO erred in not considering the credit for Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting ... ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit of tax deducted at source. In this regard, the A.O. is directed to give corresponding TDS credit to the assessee. 28. ground Nos.13 & 14 are consequential in nature

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

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

ITA 139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sarwana Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (2011) 203 taxman 477 (Karn). Accordingly, he directed the A.O. to examine the details of tax deducted at source and disallow the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, if the assessee had not deducted tax at source. 4.2 With regard

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction at source. However the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on the same. When this issue was confronted by the AO, the assessee contended ... year. The following are the contents of the said letter (copy filed by DR in Court), in so far as it relates to taxes deductible at source. "3. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT the assessee company took the same plea that it had deducted

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction at source. However the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on the same. When this issue was confronted by the AO, the assessee contended ... year. The following are the contents of the said letter (copy filed by DR in Court), in so far as it relates to taxes deductible at source. "3. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT the assessee company took the same plea that it had deducted

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction at source. However the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on the same. When this issue was confronted by the AO, the assessee contended ... year. The following are the contents of the said letter (copy filed by DR in Court), in so far as it relates to taxes deductible at source. "3. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT the assessee company took the same plea that it had deducted

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned AO erred in not considering the credit for Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting ... ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit of tax deducted at source. In this regard, the A.O. is directed to give corresponding TDS credit to the assessee. 28. ground Nos.13 & 14 are consequential in nature

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned AO erred in not considering the credit for Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting ... ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit of tax deducted at source. In this regard, the A.O. is directed to give corresponding TDS credit to the assessee. 28. ground Nos.13 & 14 are consequential in nature

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned AO erred in not considering the credit for Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting ... ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit of tax deducted at source. In this regard, the A.O. is directed to give corresponding TDS credit to the assessee. 28. ground Nos.13 & 14 are consequential in nature

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

tax credit in the draft assessment order and has arbitrarily not allowed the same in the final assessment order. 12. Short credit of tax deducted at source 12.1. The learned AO erred in not considering the credit for Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") amounting ... ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit of tax deducted at source. In this regard, the A.O. is directed to give corresponding TDS credit to the assessee. 28. ground Nos.13 & 14 are consequential in nature