https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448732 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal regarding Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) credit, directing the AO to grant credit for DDT actually paid as evidenced by tax challans and Form 26AS, correcting the Revenue's misunderstanding that credit was sought against regular tax. The tribunal deleted additions based on TDS mismatch in Form 26AS, holding Revenue failed to prove the assessee received the amounts. Interest levy under section 115P was directed to be re-examined after granting DDT credit. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s allowance of warranty provision deduction under section 37(1), rejecting AO's disallowance based on 38.5% utilization ratio. However, refund of excess DDT paid on dividends to non-residents was denied following SC precedent in Nestle SA case. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2024 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448732 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal regarding Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) credit, directing the AO to grant credit for DDT actually paid as evidenced by tax challans and Form 26AS, correcting the Revenue's misunderstanding that credit was sought against regular tax. The tribunal deleted additions based on TDS mismatch in Form 26AS, holding Revenue failed to prove the assessee received the amounts. Interest levy under section 115P was directed to be re-examined after granting DDT credit. The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s allowance of warranty provision deduction under section 37(1), rejecting AO's disallowance based on 38.5% utilization ratio. However, refund of excess DDT paid on dividends to non-residents was denied following SC precedent in Nestle SA case. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448732