“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

The Congregation of the Sisters of the Cross of Chavanod, Trichy vs. CIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 807/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

statement of TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. A clause (c) has been inserted into this Section by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015 which provide that the fees ... Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') a tax deductor is required to file quarterly statement of such taxes deducted at source by him as TDS and for the period in question, the relevant dates for filing of such statement is as follows: (i) 30th June - 15th July

Digant Laxmidas Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh

Section 143(1)Section 5(1)Section 6

received during the relevant previous year from BE Billimoria & Company. He submitted that the Appellant had claimed credit of the corresponding tax deducted at source amounting to INR 1,23,672/- which included TDS of INR 97,302/- brought forward from earlier years. Since, the Appellant had not received interest

Hampi Expressways Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 895/MUM/2022[2017,-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 199Section 234BSection 234D

scrutiny. In the computation of income, the Appellant had claimed credit of INR 66,49,131/- consisting of INR 66,26,115/- being tax deducted at source by National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and INR ITA. No. 895/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 23,016/- being tax deducted at source ... India (SBI). However, vide order, dated 26.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer denied credit for the aforesaid tax deducted at source holding that the Appellant had failed to offer corresponding income to tax during the relevant assessment year and therefore, the Appellant

Krishna Pandurang Kobnak, Thane vs. CIT Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed

ITA 337/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ishaan PatkarFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

fees under Section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under Section 200A of the Act on processing of Statement of Tax Deducted at Source [„TDS Statement‟ in short] of third quarter of Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 3. The Appellant ... were for computation and intimation for payment of fees under section 234E of the Act as they relate for the period of tax deducted at source prior to 01.06.2015 were being set aside. 15. In other words, the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka explained the position of charging

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax, CPC Bagalore Bagalore, Bagalore

In the result, the appeals of the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1292 & 1293/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Greatship (India) Vs. Asst. Director Of Income- Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Karnataka - 560500 House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Akram Khan &For Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 143(1)Section 199

such credit may be given. On a perusal of the relevant Rule 37BA, we find, that the same reads as under : "Credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section 199. (1) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance with ... source is assessable in the hands of a person other than the deductee, credit for the whole or any part of the tax deducted at source, as the case may be, shall be given to the other person and not to the deductee: Provided that the deductee files a declaration

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax, CPC Bagalore, Bagalore

In the result, the appeals of the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1292/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Akram Khan &For Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 143(1)Section 199

Ajaipal Mangal & Co, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm of Income Tax- Circle-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1973/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

copy of agreements entered with the sub-contractors. In response, assessee submitted a list of PAN, sub-contract amount and details of tax deducted at source. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disallowed 10% of sub-contract expenses, by observing as under: “Thus, from

Milind Kishenchand Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.10 raised by assessee is allowed and Ground No

ITA 3201/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalmilind Kishenchand Agrawal, Sun Enterprises, 605/A, Dhawalgiri Building, Plot No.13, Sher-E-Punjab Society, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aacpa1340F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-20(2)(2), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Shailesh M. Bandi Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh M. BandiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 40Section 43BSection 69C

thereof. Hence, the said fact was brought to the notice of the assessee and he was asked to furnish party-wise details of tax deducted at source during the year u/s.194A, 194H and 194J of the Act. In response, the assessee's representative, vide letter dated 21/12/2012 submitted a statement

Jyoti H. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2475/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2475/मुं/ 2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Jyoti H. Mehta, 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan:Abnpm-8233-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Astt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -23.[Now Acit-Cc-4(1)] Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Gopani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Damor(Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor(CIT-DR)

Section 234ASection 234B

issue was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to recompute interest liability after reducing amount of tax deducted at source on the income earned. This issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with similar 6 directions. Consequently, ground No.5 of appeal is allowed

Shri. Amit Prakash Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2144/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 192Section 200Section 201Section 205Section 221Section 234A

deduction. Even the CBDT OM dated 11.03.2016 bearing no. F.No. 275/29/2014-IT(B) reads as under :- 4 Amit Prakash Mehta “Sub: Non-deposit of tax deducted at source by the deductor- Recovery of demand against the deductee assessee. Vide letter of even number dated 01.06.2015, the Board had issued directions ... 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

Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1586/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1586/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited. Room No.4, 1St Floor, Khaitan Chamber, 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacc-2274-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 20/04/2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Himanshu Gandhi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee On The Ground Of Limitation Alone. Narrating Sequence Of Events, The Ld. Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu

Section 143(1)Section 154

Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’ ] on 29/03/2019. While processing the return of income the assessee was denied credit of tax deducted at source. The assessee was advised by its tax consultant to file rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act. The assessee filed the said petition

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 584/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

refund due to, the assessee shall be determined after adjustment of the tax and interest, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 563/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

total income of INR 117,47,85,218/- which was revised on 27.03.2012 declaring the same total income after claiming additional credit for tax deducted at source. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had entered into ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not granting credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS) amounting to Rs. 1,63,09,096. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to grant credit

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

issues, in AY 2015-16 in Ground No.25 & 26, the Assessee has projected its grievance in the AO having given short credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of amalgamating companies. For Assessment Year 2015-16, the AO has not allowed credit for tax deducted at source and advanced tax

The Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

learned CIT (A) that payment made by the assessee for purchase of land amounting to ₹7,03,96,000/- is not subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194IA and accordingly, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was deleted allowing the assessee to increase ... solitary ground against confirmation of disallowance of ₹37,02,693/- under Section 37(1) of the Act being interest on late payment of tax deduction at source. 025. The learned Assessing Officer has filed appeal in ITA No.227/Mum/2022 wherein the expenditure of Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure

ACIT Central Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 631/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

M/S Wadhwa Construction and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 585/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

M/S Wadhwa Construction and Infrastruction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C