TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissing the appellant's claim for TDS which was not granted in the intimation passed under section 143 (1) of the Act based on Rule 37 BA by applying a proportionate formula. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not considering appellant's ground where it was mentioned that out of the total amount of revenue of Rs. 1,41,86,672/- as per Form 26 AS, an amount of Rs. 89,91,331/- was appellant's agency fees which is as per the financial statements while Rs. 52,49,276/- was receipts on behalf of Foreign Principal's account. Tax was deducted at source at an applicable rate and was claimed by the appellant being an agent of Foreign Principal. The appellant submits that since TDS has been deducted on invoices raised on behalf of the Foreign Principals under the PAN of the appellant and the same appears in Form 26AS of the appellant, credit thereof ought to be granted to the appellant. By denying such credit to the appellant, the credit of such TDS has not been given to anyone which can never be the intention of the legislature as the said TDS would not remain available to anyone. 4. The appellant submits that the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that Rule 37BA will appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roviso to section 143(1)(a). 2. The only issue raised in this appeal for consideration is with regard to grant of credit for TDS of the entire amount as appearing in form 26AS, whereas the revenue authorities allowed to the extent of Rs. 1,74,861/-. Therefore the short grant of Rs. 95,799/- is on account of the fact that TDS appearing in from 26AS relates to receipts equivalent to Rs. 1,41,86,672/- while the receipts offered to tax by the assessee in its return of income stood at Rs. 91,65,381/-, the credit has been proportionately allowed as per intimation order dated 09.01.2024 issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by relying upon the Sec. 199 of the Act r.w.r 37BA(2) of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee ought to have got the TDS Certificates issued in the name of the foreign shipping line by filing the necessary declarations with the persons responsible for deducting the TDS. Now argued with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the payment made to the assessee, it is entitled to get credit in respect of the same. 7. I have gone through the Section 199(3) of the Act which enables the CBDT to make such rules for the purposes of giving such credit including the rules for grant of such credit to a person other than that referred to in sub section (1) and sub section (2) thereof. Pursuant thereto, rule 37BA of the Rules has been notified by the CBDT. 8. In my considered view according to sub-rule (1) thereof, such credit for TDS has to be allowed to the person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given on the basis of information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the Income-tax authority. As in the present case, such information is contained in Form 26AS which is also according to the said rule, thus the assessee should be allowed credit in respect of the entire amount of TDS as reflected in such Form. 9. Although Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA enables the recipient of income to file a declaration with the deductor to the effect that such TDS may be reflected in the name of the other person. But this enabling provision is not mandatory. However, if the necessary requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B) and section 115U of the Act, the assessee acted as a pass through and the income which it generated from venture capital undertakings had to be assessed in the hands of the investors. Therefore, the assessee did not reflect any income to tax but claimed refund of the TDS deducted by the venture capital undertakings. The Tribunal has upheld the assessee's claim. The facts are in para 1, grounds in para 2 and the Revenue's submissions before the Tribunal in para 3 which are similar to those urged in the present case i.e., relying upon the provisions of section 199 and rule 37BA (2). The conclusion thereon in paras 5 and 6 completely supports the assessee's case. iv. In the case of ACIT v. Digi JPR Networks Private Limited being Order dated 04.08.2015 in ITA No. 6070/Mum/2014, wherein it was held as under: where the parent company of the assessee deducted tax at source on the payment which it made to the assessee for onward payment to the broadcasters or the channel companies. The assessee reflected such amounts in the Balance sheet and did not route the same thorough its Profit & loss account. However, its claim for TDS has been upheld by the CIT(A) a....