Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
TDS credit is available only to the person in whose hands the related income is assessable. The assessee, an APMC commission agent, admitted that the purchases and sales on which tax was deducted were those of agriculturists or farmers, not his own sales income. On that factual basis, the ITAT held that TDS reflected in the assessee's PAN was a wrong deduction entry and could not be claimed by him without corresponding income being offered to tax. The proper remedy was correction of the TDS statement by the deductor or issue of the credit in the correct names. The denial of TDS credit was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
TDS credit is available only to the person in whose hands the related income is assessable. The assessee, an APMC commission agent, admitted that the purchases and sales on which tax was deducted were those of agriculturists or farmers, not his own sales income. On that factual basis, the ITAT held that TDS reflected in the assessee's PAN was a wrong deduction entry and could not be claimed by him without corresponding income being offered to tax. The proper remedy was correction of the TDS statement by the deductor or issue of the credit in the correct names. The denial of TDS credit was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.