“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

Friends Salt Works and Allied Industries, Gandhidham vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 169/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

further erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 19,415/-being interest on late deposit of tax deducted at source into the Government account. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought not have confirm ... surround lease land", Rs. 87,29,720/- being losses suffered on washing of salt, Rs. 19,415/- being interest on late deposit of tax deducted at source into the Government account and addition of Rs. 2,77,06,992/- being net amount received on sale of carbon credit

Friends Salt Works & Allied Inds., Gandhidham vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 99/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

The India Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2174/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 10(39)Section 115JSection 14A

explanation 1(a) to section 115 JB of the act. Admittedly TDs is not an income tax of the assessee. It is a tax deducted at source in respect of income of a 3rd party, therefore TDs cannot be considered as income tax payable by the assessee on its income

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

R G Lifter, Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 199Section 234A

NFAC, DELHI has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. ADIT, CPC, which denied the credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 6,14,931/- despite the same being duly reflected in the appellant's Form No. 26AS and claimed ... ADIT Asst. Year – 2019-20 - 2– 1961. read with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which mandates that credit for tax deducted at source shall be given for the assessment year for which such Income is assessable and cannot be denied merely on procedural grounds. d) That

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

therefore, this should not have been added. Regarding the addition of Rs.30,000/-, it was submitted that the payment was pertaining to Tax Deducted at Source and, thus, the same could not be said to be unexplained. The Ld. A.R. prayed that all additions sustained by the NFAC be deleted

Hemant Enterprises, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 394/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepa Khare-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 234A

second respondent is the assessee in default. The petitioner cannot be made to pay tax twice. Recovery of any of such Tax Deducted at Source but not remitted by the second respondent has to be recovered only from the second respondent. 34. Therefore, I am inclined to quash the respective ... salary of the employee, the bar under section 205 of the Act comes into operation and it is immaterial as to whether the tax deducted at source has been paid to the Central Government or not, because elaborate provisions are made under the Act for recovery of tax deducted

Acronis Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )Range-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2035/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

technical services is hereby directed to be deleted in entirety. 58. Coming to Ground No. 8 relating to short grant of credit for tax deducted at source, the assessee has contended that credit of TDS amounting to ₹18,50,387 has not been fully granted as per Form 26AS. This ... nature. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to Form 26AS and grant due credit for tax deducted at source in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 59. Ground Nos.7 and 9 being consequential in nature

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

hence amount appearing in Form 26AS is not necessarily the Appellant's income for the relevant assessment year. 4:0 Re.: Credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.51,70,03,502/-: 4:1 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant full credit ... tax deducted at source of Rs.51,70,03,502/- as claimed by the Appellant in its return of income for the year under consideration. 4:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it is entitled to full

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 350/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

ITA 319/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

hence amount appearing in AIR is not necessarily the Appellant's income for the relevant assessment year. 4:0 Re.: Credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.51,70,03,502/- 4:1 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant full credit for tax ... that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it is entitled to full credit for tax deducted at source from its income as claimed by it and NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have held as such. 4:3 The Appellant submits that

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, Haryana

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

ITA 668/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Ms. Rattan Kaur & Shri A.K. Jindal, C.A's

Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

section 142, (i) if any Tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any Tax deducted at source, any advance Tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of Tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provision of sub-section ... section (1) of section 142, if any Tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any Tax deducted at source, any advance Tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of Tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions

Jakson Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5014/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO disallowing the deduction of interest on late deposit of tax deducted at source (“TDS") of Rs. 1,15,248/- while computing the total income under normal provisions of the Act and book profits u/s 115JB

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Jakson Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5010/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Jakson Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4987/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

Brig Resolution Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(2), 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 6361/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: 01/12/2025

Section 143(1)Section 154

tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 25.06.2021. Under the said Act”) on 25.06.2021. Under the said intimation, credit for tax intimation, credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) was granted at ₹10,84,152/ deducted at source (TDS) was granted at 10,84,152/- as against the claim ... certificate for the (a) the assessee should produce the certificate for the (a) the assessee should produce the certificate for the amount of tax deducted at source amount of tax deducted at source; (b) show that income subjected to TDS is disclose (b) show that income subjected