“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

Rajshree Singh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1356/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 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.” 10. Thus, the amount of tax sought ... determined by taking into consideration the amount of tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and selfassessment tax paid before the issue of notice u/s 148. The case of the assessee is covered by this

DCIT., Central Circle, Tirupati vs. Bi Mining Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 709/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit Vs. M/S Bi Mining (P) Ltd Central Circle Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aagcb6685D (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/05/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Visakhapatnam, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow Credit Of Tds Without Appreciating The Fact That, The Claim Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 199

person from whose income, the deduction was made. Rule 37BA(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, deals with the credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Govt. and as per said rule credit for TDS shall be given for the A.Y for which such ... been deducted at source and paid to the Central Govt. and the income is assessable over a number of years, credit for tax deducted at source shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is assessable to tax. We find, there is no dispute

Rama Chandra Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2076/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2076/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Chandar Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, A/P-Ahmadabad, Tal-Shirur, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Dist-Pune – 412218. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt.Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 22.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Levying The Penalty U/S 270A Under Reporting Misreporting Of Income. 2. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A In Absence Of Specific Limb In The Show Cause Notice Dated 26.12.2019 Under Which The Penalty U/S 270A Is To Be Levied. 3. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A In Absence Of Specific Limb In The Penalty Order Dated 19/01/2022 Under Which The Penalty U/S 270A Is To Be Levied. 4. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Consider That The Entire Penalty Proceedings Were Conducted & Concluded During The Covid -19 Pandemic Which Is In Contravention To The Principles Of Natural Justice. 5. The Assesse Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Substitute Any Of The Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

employees compensation based on years of service and an accountant in the company informed them that they would get refund of tax deducted at source upon filing of income tax. 2 The original return of income of the Assessee for A.Y.2017-18 was filed on 02.07.2017 by claiming relief under chapter

Subba Reddy Mareddy, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Subba Reddy Mareddy V. Ito - Ward-1(1) Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 25-2-56 Prop Amarnath Chillies Traders Opp Mastan Durga Ragraharam Guntur – 522004, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Alfpm2380K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 199

learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in not allowing credit for the entire tax deducted at source. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that in accordance with the provisions of Sec.199 the sum deducted under

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 434/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.434/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Pb No. 15, Tanuku Road Veerabhadrapuram Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh - 534102 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaacf2643K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

India iii. Shaswat Eco Waste Trading Pvt Ltd., Page No. 9 I.T.A.No.434/VIZ/2024 3F Industries Limited 13. Ld.AR further submitted that since the tax deducted at source was not reflected in the Form 26AS it was not claimed by the assessee during the A.Y.2018-19. However, the assessee claimed that unclaimed ... therefore direct the Ld. AO to verify the claim made by the assessee during the A.Y. 2021-22 for the claim of tax deducted at source pertaining to A.Y.2018-19 and thereby allow the same, if found genuine. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

United Brothers Multiplast LLP (Successor to M/S United Brothers), Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2919/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailunited Brothers Multiplast Llp (Successor To M/S. United Brothers) 301, Heritage Plazza, A Wing, R.S. Maharaj Marg, Teli Gali, ……………. Appellant Cross Lane, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400069 Pan: Aaafu0314K V/S

For Appellant: Shri V.G. GindeFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

been doubted, credit has to be granted to the TDS mentioned therein for the assessee. ** ** ** 9 The Revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax deducted at source without credit being available to anybody. If credit of tax is not allowed to the assessee, and the joint venture has not filed