“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

Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 72/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 37B

ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO (CPC) in not allowing the credit of tax deducted at source. The Id. ADDL/JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that such an action is contrary to the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax ... section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.] (Rule 37BA of IT, Rules) [Credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section 199.] 37BA. (1) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Gove in accordance with the provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

tax sought to be evaded shall be the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.] Accordingly as there is no adverse impact ... case to which Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148. However in the present case the return

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

tax sought to be evaded shall be the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.] ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 9 Shri ... case to which Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148. However in the present case the return

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Inderjit Kaur, Nakodar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Nakodar

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

ITA 413/ASR/2024[2016-77]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2025AY 2016-77

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

portal and the assessee has also disclosed the same in her return of income (originally filed) and has also claimed refund of excess tax deducted at source. 10. The ld. DR after going through the documentary evidences has no objection if the matter is set aside back to the files

Asha Didwania, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 275(1)(c)

extended to 30th June, 2021 vide Circular No.9 of 2021, may be furnished on or before 15th July, 2021. 3) The Certificate of Tax Deducted at Source in Form No.16, required to be furnished to the employee by 15th June, 2021 under Rule 31 of the Rules, as extended

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

which cannot establish a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties. As such, the said sum or any part thereof cannot be liable to tax deducted at source under the relevant provisions of the IT Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sainath

International Green Scapes Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2047/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Dcit, Ltd. B-16, Circle-74(1), Room No. 411, South Extn., Part-1, Vs 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr [Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Cit(Tds), Ltd., B-16, Delhi-1, Room No. 610, 6Th South Extn., Part-1, Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

filed regarding the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court in this order upheld Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on External Development Charges (EDC) in a real estate project. A division Bench of Delhi High Court Comprising Justices Yashwant- Varma

International Green Scapes Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2046/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

maturity proceeds u/s 194DA and because of their mistake the appellant cannot be Penalized. 3.2 Form 26AS merely reflects tax deducted at source (TDS) but does not determine whether an income is actually taxable. Form 26AS is only a tool for reconciliation and cannot be treated as conclusive proof

Eastern Shipping Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosaineastern Shipping Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 6(2)(1) Godrej Coliseum, Office No. Aayakar Bhavan 801, 8Th Floor, C Wing, Of Mumbai Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai – 400022. Pan/Gir No. Aahce1084E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Learned Addl / JCIT (A)-2, Surat (hereinafter referred to as ["the CIT (A) "] erred in dismissing the appellant's claim for tax deducted at source ('TDS") of Rs. 95,799/- for which credit 2 Eastern Shipping Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. was not granted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax

Technip India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 9852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not providing credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 2,35,51,658 and foreign tax credit of INR 13,25,393 while computing the assessed income.” Grounds ... deleted. 8.9 Ground of Appeal nos. 18 and 19 are consequential. 8.10 In regard to Ground of Appeal No.20, Ld. AO has provided tax deduction at source credit amounting to Rs.11,63,89,730/- instead of Rs.13,99,41,388/- claimed by the assessee. TDS credit is reflected in Form

Technip India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 6390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

DCIT, Cental Circle 2(3), Kolkata vs. Lumino Industries Limited, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Lumino Industries Ltd……………………............…..….…..….......……...…..…..Respondent Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] C.O No.57/Kol/2025 (In I.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lumino Industries Ltd.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata ……………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objections D By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Ay 2014-15. 02. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 7 Days By The Revenue, For Which, Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed By The Revenue, We Are Of The View That The

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

also paid interest on these loans after deduction of tax at source and the details were also given in the same table. The tax deducted at source was also deposited in the Government Treasury. We would like to note that these loans were repaid through banking channel even prior

Liebherr Werk Nenzing Gmbh, Austria vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1346/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The limited issue under consideration pertains to non-grant of credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 9,04,380/-. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income ... claiming refund of Rs. 9,61,210/-. It was submitted that while filing its return of income, the assessee has claimed credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 32,99,768/- as per Form 26AS issued for the year under consideration. Thereafter, rectifications order dated 08.10.2020 was served

Rakesh Kumar Bhutoria, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 368/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250

assessee by holding as under: “4.1 The appellant filed his income tax return for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, claiming a Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit of 56,80,974 on his salary. However, while processing the return, the Centralized Processing I.T.A. No.: 368/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rakesh ... almost identical, no separate reasoning are desirable and the petition is being ALLOWED. The department is precluded from denying the benefit of the tax deducted at source by the employer during the relevant financial years to the petitioner. 10. It is given to understand by learned Senior Standing Counsel

U Games Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaru Games Private Limited, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Tower 4, Central B Wing, 5 Th बनाम 13(1)(1), 225, Aaykar Floor, Nesco It Park, Nesco Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Centre, Western Express Road, Mumbai–400020, Highway, Goregaon (East), Maharashtra Mumbai –400 063, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccu7582L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 244A

talks of granting credit for TDS to the person who is lawfully taxable in respect of such income. 1.1.7. the revenue cannot retain tax deducted at source without credit being made available to any entity, which is against the spirit and intention of the law and principle of substantive justice ... agreement dated 01.04.2021.During the year, the assessee derived income of Rs 8,06,42,504/-from M/s Google Asia Pacific P.Ltd on which Tax Deduction of source(‘TDS’) of Rs 8,06,425/-u/s 194-O of the Act was made. The income and the TDS amount are reflected

Godrej Projects North Star LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle41(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4258/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 140Section 140ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234B(2)Section 250Section 39Section 94

mean tax on total income computed under Section 143(1)/143(3) of the Act as reduced by the tax deducted at source, any tax relief allowed under Section 90/90A of the Act etc. Thus, the basis of computation of ‘assessed tax' or shortfall in the ‘assessed tax ... Section 140A(1B) of the Act to mean tax on total income as declared in the return of income as reduced by the tax deducted at source, any tax relief allowed under Section 90/90A of the Act etc. Thus, the basis of computation of ‘assessed tax' or shortfall

Nararshabh Sharma, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 7(3), Pune, Aayakar Sadan Pune

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

ITA 1530/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia-JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140BSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80T

showing tax payable at Rs. 7,18,749/- and late return filing fee at Rs. 5,000/-. In the income tax return, tax deducted at source (TDS) is shown at Rs. 7,23,740/-, however, as per Form 26AS, assessee was entitled TDS credit of Rs. 23,830/- only ... stating that the correct income of the assessee is only Rs. 17,56,800/- and that the wrong figures of income and tax deducted at source have been mentioned in the income tax return, but the assessee failed to get any relief. 4. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised

Jay Maharashtra Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 3856/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jay Maharashtra Co-Op. Credit Ito 19(1)(5), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Shiv Parel, Bhavan, Bldg. No. 25, 4Th Mumbai-400012. Kamathipura, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008. Pan No. Aafaj 3385 B Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Ahir

Section 69C

amount of deposits collected, the commission paid, and tax sits collected, the commission paid, and tax sits collected, the commission paid, and tax deducted at source thereon has been furnished before us, which is deducted at source thereon has been furnished before us, which is deducted at source thereon