TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 46,66,874 in its order dated September 27, 2024 passed under section 250 of the IT Act for AY 2018- 19 ('impugned order) despite the fact that the Appellant has duly offered the corresponding income and is therefore, eligible for claiming TDS as per section 199 of the IT Act The Appellant, therefore, prays that the TDS credit due of Rs. 46,66,874 be granted to it. Ground No. 2 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in denying the credit of TDS amounting to Rs 38,95,402 (appearing in Form 26AS of its agent in India) in the impugned order despite the fact that the Appellant has duly offered the corresponding income and is therefore, eligible for claiming TDS as per section 199 of the IT Act The Appellant, therefore, prays that the TDS credit due of Rs. 38,95,402 be granted to it. Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed by the assessee of Rs. 46,66,874/- was denied. Thus, in the return so processed vide said intimation, the total income was determined at nil with income-tax payable/refundable by/to the assessee as nil. Consequent to this processing of return and denial of TDS credit, an online rectification application was filed u/s.154. Assessee also moved an appeal before ld. CIT(A) against denial of the said TDS credit. In the order passed by the CPC against the rectification application, TDS credit was not granted but at the same time, income reported by the assessee at nil was not disturbed. Another application for rectification was moved before the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to claim the credit for the TDS so done. The said application is stated to be pending as on date. 3.3. Claim of the assessee is that TDS credit ought to be granted to it since the income on which the said TDS is done belongs to the assessee which has been duly reported in its return, however, not chargeable to tax owing to provisions contained in Article 8 in India- Qatar DTAA. In this respect, assessee submitted that it had issued an undertaking/declaration to PSAPL, stating its intention to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made where the TDS was deducted on income which has been shown and offered to tax by the assessee, Late Russi Dinshaw Bahadurji even though TDS has been deducted in the case of Deed of Settlement / Trust. There is no provision of Section 199(1) that deduction cannot be allowed on the payment of tax who has offered the income. Rule 37BA which has been framed by the CBDT in terms of section 199(3) provides credit for tax deducted at source for the purpose of Section 199, which reads as under:- "37BA (1) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII, shall be given to the person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given (hereinafter referred to as deductee) on the basis of information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority. (2) (i) Where under any provisions of the Act, the whole or any part of the income on which tax has been deducted at 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, shal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the hands of a person other than the deductee, whereas the intention is to grant credit for the tax deducted at source on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction has been made. Now if the deductee has produced evidence or certificate that it has not claimed TDS as income belongs to the other person and in his return has not taken such credit, which fact has also been acknowledged by the department and there is no dispute by the department that the original deductee is never going to take the credit of TDS, then if deductor for some reason fails to report the tax deduction in the name of the other person; or does not issue the certificate for deduction of tax at source in the name of the person in whose name credit is shown in the information relating to deduction of tax, then, is other person who is showing the income in respect of which TDS has been deducted and the original deductee files a declaration with the deductor and also in the return of income, can credit of TDS be denied to the other person showing the income. Under such circumstances a liberal interpretation has to be given. The form prescribed under the rules cannot have an effect of interpretation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordance with provisions of the Act for the purpose of implementation provided under the Act and same cannot be extended the scope of such prescription and lay down any conditions or qualifications which are outside the realm of its powers. This proposition has been held by the following judgments:- * CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (1994) (209 ITR 441) (Bom) "The Supreme Court decisions referred to above are clear. They specifically speak of the rules and not the form. In principle also no distinction between the form and the rule can be drawn to judge the extent of delegation under section ii(2)(a) where the language does not permit delegation of power to prescribe limitation to give notice. The conclusion is thus inevitable that the Income-tax Rules could not fix a time-limit for submitting the application in Form No. 10 under rule 17 and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion." * Sales Tax Officer vs. KI Abraham (1967 AIR SC1823) "The decision of the question at issue therefore depends on the construction of the phrase "in the prescribed manner" in s. 8(4) read with s. 13 of the Act. In our opinion, the phrase....