“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4078/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify in whose hands the income has been shown and allow the credit of Tax Deducted at Source as per the relevant provisions of the law. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The last grievance relates to the disallowance under

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4076/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

Kec International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4022/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

Kec International Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4021/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

Jcdecaux S.A., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not allowing entire credit of tax deducted at source while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Openwave Mobility, Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

assessee claimed these receipts as non-taxable in India and claimed credit of TDS/refund of Rs. 52,62,769/- on account of tax deducted at source by its customers in India. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny on the reason “High Ratio of Refund

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Candor Gurgaon One Reality Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1647/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 34,19,361 on the payments made to the Appellant. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Candor Gurgaon One Reality Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-5(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1635/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

Krishna Hari Gaddam, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(1)Section 192

income, declaring a total income of Rs. 86,10,680/- and paid total income tax of Rs. 27,37,674/-, consisting of Tax Deducted at Source (“TDS”) of Rs. 15,11,384/- and self assessment tax of Rs.12,26,290/-. The CPC Bengluru (“CPC”) in the intimation ... allowed credit of tax because the credit has to be given in view of section 199 of the Act only when the tax deducted at source is paid to the Central Government, which admittedly was not so paid in this case. This contention was raised also in the case

Shri. S. Sathyaraj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1529/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri. S. Sathyaraj, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13A, Brahadambal Road, V. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aafps-6100-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. J. Chandrasekaran, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 201(1)Section 205

extent to which tax has been deducted on such income. 4. The Learned CIT (A) erred in denying the benefit of the Tax deducted at source by the deductor on the ground that Tax is not credited to the Government A/c. 5. The Learned CIT (A) & Assessing Officer has failed ... recovery of tax must be made from the deductors and not from the Appellant. The Lower Authorities ought to have given Credit of tax deducted at source to the Appellant. 6. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate that the Assessee has repeatedly made efforts to contact the deductors

Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2023[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesaint Gobain Abrasives Inc V. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Income-Tax (International Chartered Accountants Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1) Esplanade House, 29 Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Air India Building Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 Pan: Aaics4348A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Akram Khan & Shri Jinit Shah Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 92E

under a bonafide belief that it was not required to file any return of income as its income has been subjected to tax deducted at source. We find that the assessee did furnish report under section 92E of the Act during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings itself. Considering

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

under the category of sec. 244A(1)(a)(i) of the Act because the refund order to the assessee is out of the tax deducted at source upto 31.03.2017 and the assessee had furnished its original return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Even though the assessee has revised

Suja International, South Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 670/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194J

assessee has raised six grounds of appeal which revolve around sole and substantive issue of non-allowance of the credit of Tax Deducted at Source [In short ‘TDS’] of Rs. 9,54,132/- in the relevant assessment year irrespective of the fact that the consequential income thereof

Rajeev Bal Sawangikar, Nagpur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-4, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 16/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)

facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and not allowing the credit of Tax deducted at source. 3. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. Any consequential relief, to which the appellant may be entitled

Commissioner for Govt Examinations, Poojappura vs. DCIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 994/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 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. Duty of person deducting ... under this sub-section in such form and verified in such manner as may be specified by the authority. Processing of statements of tax deducted at source. 200A. (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source or a correction statement has been made by a person deducting