← 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

Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for making adjustments in respect of statements filed by the appellant with regard to tax deducted at source. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the appellant submits that the that the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle-1, Kolhaur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2025[2014-15 - Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for making adjustments in respect of statements filed by the appellant with regard to tax deducted at source. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the appellant submits that the that the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Circle -1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2285/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for making adjustments in respect of statements filed by the appellant with regard to tax deducted at source. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case, the appellant submits that the that the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7255/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 234CSection 234C(1)(b)Section 80M

Appellant objects to the demand raised of Rs. 35,59,770/-. 2) Both lower authorities erred in not granting the Appellant, credit for Tax deducted at source to the tune of Rs. 71,407/- deducted by Yes Bank Limited (TAN: MUMY01286F). M/s. Rallis India Ltd. 3) The learned Commissioner

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7254/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 234CSection 234C(1)(b)Section 80M

Appellant objects to the demand raised of Rs. 35,59,770/-. 2) Both lower authorities erred in not granting the Appellant, credit for Tax deducted at source to the tune of Rs. 71,407/- deducted by Yes Bank Limited (TAN: MUMY01286F). M/s. Rallis India Ltd. 3) The learned Commissioner

Shree Vegam Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak K. Zaveri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

amending section 194A(3)(v) is concerned, on perusal of section 194A (3), it appears that it provides for exemption from deducting Tax Deducted at Source from the income on interest other than interest on securities as the cooperative societies other than cooperative banks meaning thereby that the cooperative banks

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8364/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

credit for advance tax and TDS 29. The assessee has raised grounds relating to non-grant of credit for advance tax and tax deducted at source. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to Form 26AS and grant due credit in accordance with

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8363/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

credit for advance tax and TDS 29. The assessee has raised grounds relating to non-grant of credit for advance tax and tax deducted at source. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to Form 26AS and grant due credit in accordance with

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8362/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

credit for advance tax and TDS 29. The assessee has raised grounds relating to non-grant of credit for advance tax and tax deducted at source. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to Form 26AS and grant due credit in accordance with

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8361/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

credit for advance tax and TDS 29. The assessee has raised grounds relating to non-grant of credit for advance tax and tax deducted at source. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to Form 26AS and grant due credit in accordance with

Akshita Vikrant Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 777/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri PM Jagashetha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel. Sr. D.R
Section 194ISection 54F

Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– per his report has taken the value @ 76 per sq. ft. The assessee has given the details of Tax Deducted at Source on sale of immovable property u/s 194IA which clearly indicates that total transaction was Rs.29,53,983 and the statement of Long Term

Maddirala Srinivasa Rao, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, i

ITA 158/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 115BSection 132Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158

involved labour, material and other expenses and yielded low profit. The assessee to support his claim had referred to the fact that the tax deducted at source (TDS) on the said receipts from printing work was deducted under section 194C @1%. Accordingly, the assessee in his original return of income

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1237/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

that it was the claim of the assessee company that as there was no default on its part in depositing the amount of tax deducted at source (TDS) for being treated as an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act, therefore, no interest under the aforesaid statutory provision ... Apropos, the assessee's claim that the AO had erred in charging interest under section 220(2) on the deemed belated remittance of tax deducted at source (TDS), the CIT(A) observed that as the assessee company had neither proved that the demand raised by the CPC due to late

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

ITA 1236/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

that it was the claim of the assessee company that as there was no default on its part in depositing the amount of tax deducted at source (TDS) for being treated as an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act, therefore, no interest under the aforesaid statutory provision ... Apropos, the assessee’s claim that the AO had erred in charging interest under section 220(2) on the deemed belated remittance of tax deducted at source (TDS), the CIT(A) observed that as the assessee company had neither proved that the demand raised by the CPC due to late

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Sanjay Gopaldas Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5944/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54

remaining 50% belonged to his mother, Smt. Saroj Bajaj. Though the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed credit for the entire tax deducted at source for the entire tax deducted at source for the entire tax deducted at source for the entire tax deducted at source ... entire tax deducted at source for the entire tax deducted at source for the entire tax deducted at source for the rental income amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- rental income amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- rental income amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- rental income amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- rental

Farlin Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5035/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. Aakash KumarFor Respondent: 19/11/2025
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

Assessing Officer found that as per the form No. 26AS records, the Assessing Officer found that as per the form No. 26AS tax deducted at source on d at source on commission income u/s 194H of commission income u/s 194H of Rs.44,04,037/- and Rs.4,64,845/ and Rs.4

Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 7249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 191Section 194BSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

dated 17/03/2025, is deleted. As regards interest of INR.26,312/- levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act for delay in deposit of tax deducted at source is concerned, keeping in view finding returned by the Learned CIT(A) in Paragraph 5.5. of the order, we confirm the order