The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITA 470/AHD/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Income Tax Department against Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. concerning the denial of TDS credit for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The primary issue was whether the TDS credit claimed by the assessee, which was deducted on interest income and advances against funded work, should be allowed despite the related income not being offered to tax in the respective years. The CIT(A) had allowed the TDS credit, which the Department contested. The Tribunal, after considering various judicial precedents and the specifics of the case, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the TDS credit should be granted irrespective of the year in which the related income was offered to tax, provided the TDS was duly deposited with the Government.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131558 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2020
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Limited, Indian Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. vs. CIT, Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd vs. ITO, Arvind Murjani Brands (P.) Ltd vs ITO, Zelan Projects (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT, Escorts Ltd vs DCIT, Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT, NCC Maytas JV vs. ACIT, IVRCL-KBL (JV) vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital receipt; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(1); 192

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Th e ITO, Ward-1(1 )(1), Ah medabad (Appellant) Vs Ad ani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. , Adani Ho use, Nr. Mithakali Six Road, Navrang pura, Ah med abad-3800 09 PAN: AAN CA7444 G (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri Biren Shah, A. R. Revenue by : Shri Umesh Sinha, S r. D. R. Date of hearing : 14-02 -2 023 Date of pronouncement : 24-02 -2 023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These are the two appeals filed by the Department against the order passed by ld. CIT(A)-1 for assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide order dated 03-08-2020 & 04-09-2020. ITA Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 2 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are disposed by way of a common order. 3. We shall first discuss appeal for assessment year 2017-18 and our observations made therein shall apply to assessment year 2018-19 as well. Assessment Year 2017-18 4. The Department has raised following grounds of appeal:- “(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the AO to grant TDS credit of Rs.3,08,68,845/- while ignoring the provisions of section 199 read with Rule 37BA. (2) The appellant craves, to leave, to amend and/or to alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” Assessment Year 2018-19 “(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the AO to grant TDS credit of Rs.4,41,49,426/- while ignoring the provisions of section 199 read with Rule 37BA. (2) The appellant craves, to leave, to amend and/or to alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 29 th Sep, 2017 declaring total income at Rs. Nil and claiming refund of Rs. 3,08,68,845/- on account of tax deducted at source I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 3 for the year under consideration. The break up of income offered to tax and corresponding TDS as shown claimed in the return of income is given below:- Particulars Amount Tax Deducted at Source Remarks Interest Income 1,60,88,446/- 16,08,845/- Capitalised in books of accounts Advance against Funded work 146,30,00,000/- 2,92,60,000/- Shown under the head “other liabilities” in balance sheet (schedule-12) 1,47,90,88,446/- 3,08,68,845/- Subsequently, the assessee received intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 23-03-2019, wherein it was stated that there is mismatch in credit of tax deducted at source claimed by the assessee in the return of income. In view of the above credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 3,08,68,545/- has been denied and the eligible refund of the same amount was denied to the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid non grant of TDS. 6. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee argued that firstly there is no mismatch in the amount of tax deducted at source claimed in the return of income as appearing in Form 26AS. The assessee submitted that the amount I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 4 of Rs. 3,08,68,845/- claimed by the assessee is duly reflected in Form 26AS and hence credit of the same was duly allowable to the assessee. The assessee submitted that the only reason given for denial of TDS in the 143(1) order is that there is mismatch of TDS in intimation but notably, in Form 26AS such TDS, is already reflecting. The assessee produced relevant extracts of the Form 26AS before ld. CIT(A) for his perusal and submitted that even in the official website of the Income Tax Department, it is displayed that tax credit claimed by the assessee in the return of income is in accordance with the credit available as per Form 26AS. The second argument relied upon by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) was that credit of tax deducted at source cannot be denied even if related income is capitalized and not offered in the profit and loss account. The assessee submitted that in the notice received u/s. 139(9) of the Act dated 07-02-2018, it is stated that credit for TDS has been claimed although no income has been offered to tax. The assessee submitted that during the year under consideration, tax at source has been deducted on the following receipts:- Particulars Amount Tax Deducted at Source Remarks Interest Income 1,60,88,446/- 16,08,845/- Capitalised in books of accounts Advance against Funded work 146,30,00,000/- 2,92,60,000/- Shown under the head “other liabilities” in balance sheet I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 5 (schedule-12) 1,47,90,88,446/- 3,08,68,845/- In this regard, the assessee submitted that with respect to TDS income of Rs. 1,60,88,446/- such income was earned from fixed deposits kept with bank during construction period which has been disclosed as capital work in progress in the Balance Sheet (Note 26 of Balance Sheet), the assessee capitalised the interest income with the decision in the cases of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Limited 236 ITR 315 (SC) and Indian Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. 181 taxman 149 (Delhi High Court). The assessee submitted that the income earned by the assessee is inextricably linked with the setting up of the power project and hence such income has been reduced from capital work in progress. Therefore, once the income received has been deducted from the cost of CWIP, it means that the assessee has indirectly offered the interest income to tax by way of reduction in cost of project, the net result would be claiming lower cost of work in progress at the time of recognizing income in the books of accounts. Hence, credit of tax deducted at source cannot be denied on the ground that related income has not been offered to tax during the year under consideration. 6.1 Regarding TDS of Rs. 2,92,60,000/- deducted on advance against funded work receipt, the assessee submitted that it received advance from Government of Kerala against the funded works of the project under development as per the “Concession Agreement” which includes works like site development and fish lending berth etc. Out of the total value of funded work of Rs. 146300 Lakhs, the assessee received 10% of the value during I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 6 the year under consideration on which TDS was of Rs. 2,92,60,000/-. Since the project was under development, the grant has been classified “Advance Against Funded Works” and shown under the head “other liability” in schedule 12 of the Balance Sheet. On completion of the construction of funded works the total receipts against funded works will be considered as amortized over the concession period. The counsel for the assessee submitted that credit of TDS shall be allowed to the assessee in view of amended provisions of section 199 of the Act. Once when a particular amount is received by the assessee after deduction of tax at source has been duly deposited with the Government, then the assessee becomes entitled for credit of TDS even if the assessee has not directly offered the said income to tax. The assessee submitted that as per the amended definition of section 199, the words “for the assessment year for which such income is assessable” has been omitted. Therefore, as per the amended provisions, once the TDS has been deducted, credit of the same shall be given to the assessee irrespective of the fact whether related income has been offered during the said year or not. In support of his contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents before ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations:- “5.2 Decision: I have carefully considered the Rectification Order and the submission made by the Appellant. While filing return of income, appellant has claimed TDS deducted for Rs 3,08,68,845/- but such credit is denied by AO, CPC. During the course of appellate hearing, appellant has submitted copy of 26AS and on verification of such details, it is found that such TDS is reflected in 26AS of current I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 7 year. In written submission filed by appellant, it was explained that TDS deducted for Rs 16,08,845/- and claimed in return of income pertains to interest income which is reduced from Capital Work In Progress. Further, TDS credit of Rs 2,92,60,000/- pertains to advance against funded work received. The appellant in written submission has claimed that it has received advance from government of Kerala against the Funded Works of the Project under the development as per the concession agreement which includes Breakwater Site Development and fish lending berth etc. Out of total value of funded works of Rs. 1,46,30,00,000/-, the appellant received certain amount during the year under consideration on which tax at source of Rs. 2,92,60,000/- was deducted. Since the project was under development, the grant has been classified as "Advance against funded works" and shown under the head "Other Liabilities" in Schedule 12 of the Balance Sheet. The appellant has claimed that such receipts are also in nature of capital receipts and will not form part of income in Profit & Loss account hence appellant is entitled to claim of TDS in year under consideration. 5.3 On perusal of details, it is observed that before processing return of income, AO, CPC has issued defective notice to appellant on the ground that income corresponding to TDS credit claimed in return of income is not shown in return of income and after considering appellant's explanation as mentioned in written submission (supra), A.O. CPC has treated return of income filed by appellant as valid return of income and processed such return. The AO has observed that there is mismatch in TDs claim but as per form 26AS submitted by appellant, claim made in return of income is as per such form 26AS only. The appellant has treated interest income earned by it as capital receipts and reduced from Capital Work in Progress. Even advance grant received by appellant from government of Kerala against the Funded Works of the Project is treated as capital receipt by appellant. Whether such income is capital receipt or revenue receipt is subject matter of regular assessment only and once appellant has shown such income as capital receipt or reduced its Cost of construction, TDS credit cannot be denied on the ground that such income are not offered to tax in current year. Hon'ble Chennai Bench in case of Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd. [2010] 3 ITR (Trib) 339 on identical facts has held as under: I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 8 "The deposit on which interest was earned by the assessee is mandatory as per statutory requirement. Therefore, the interest income earned on the deposit is not out of surplus funds of the assessee but due to the statutory requirement under which the deposit was made for availing of the credit facility for installation of machinery. When the interest income is in the nature of capital then the assessee has rightly deducted the same from the cost of the assets and while doing so the assessee has offered the said income though capitalised for assessment. When the interest income is not directly liable for tax as the same is incidental in the acquisition and installation of the asset then the tax deducted at source from the interest income which was duly received by the Government shall be refunded to the assessee or the assessee is entitled to the credit of the same. The Government cannot benefit itself by taking advantage of legal technicalities. Even otherwise, once the income receipt has been deducted from the cost of machinery to be installed the assessee has incorrectly offered the same for assessment and taxation because due to the reduction of cost of the machinery, and depreciation on the said machinery would be lesser and the net the same income otherwise. When a particular income is received by the assessee after deduction of tax at source and the said TDS has been duly deposited with the Government and the assessee has received the requisite certificate to this effect, then on production of the said certificate the assessee becomes entitled for the credit of TDS even if the assessee has not directly offered the said income for tax as the assessee considered the same was not liable to tax. When the assessee has earned interest on deposit mandatory for acquisition and installation of machinery then the interest was earned by the assessee and is directly incidental to the acquisition in respect of machinery and therefore the same has been rightly reduced from the cost of the machinery. In this way the assessee has indirectly disclosed income and has offered for assessment. Even if the income earned by the assessee has not been offered for tax being not liable for tax, the assessee is entitled for credit of TDS made in respect of that income. I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 9 Accordingly, the assessee is entitled for credit of TDS relating to interest income." Reliance is also placed on ratio of decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ArvindMurjani Brands (P.) Ltd vs ITO [2012] 21 taxmann.com 131 wherein it is held as under: "Section 199 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Credit for tax deducted - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether in case where amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing for allowing credit for tax deducted at source in year of receipt of amount, in which tax was deducted at source - Held, yes - One 'G' desired to take franchisee of T, a brand belonging to assessee-company - For said purpose 'G' needed to take a property on rent - Since landlords did not know franchisee very well, they did not prefer to enter into a direct agreement with 'G' - Thus, a rent agreement was executed between 'A' Ltd., a sister-concern of assessee and franchisee in terms of which 'G' paid rent to assessee after deduction of tax at source - Assessee paid over gross amount to 'A' Ltd. and 'A Ltd. in turn paid rent to landlords after deduction of tax at source - AO noted that assessee had claimed credit for tax deducted at source without offering amount of rent for taxation from which such tax was deducted - He, therefore, held that amount of TDS could not be refunded to assessee as assessee had not shown any income from rent - Whether since assessee received amount after deduction of tax at source from 'G 1 and such amount was not admittedly chargeable to tax in its hands, credit for tax deducted at source was to be allowed in instant year - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]" Considering the facts discussed herein above, AO is directed to allow TDS credit of Rs 3,08,68,845/- as claimed in return of income. The A.O. is directed to avoid any double credit to the appellant in case some credit has already been done in the system since, intimation under consideration. This ground of appeal is allowed.” I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 10 8. The Department is in appeal before us against the relief granted by ld. CIT(A). Before us, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Rule 37BA TDS credit has to be claimed in which year in which the income has been offered to tax. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing TDS credit to the assessee during the year under consideration. In response, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the TDS credit is clearly reflecting in the Form 26AS. So far as TDS on interest income is concerned, the same has been reduced from the capital work in progress (CWIP) and TDS of such interest income has been claimed as refund. Accordingly, such interest income has been indirectly offered to tax during the year under consideration. So far as the advance from Kerala Government is concerned, the assessee submitted that it is in the nature of subsidy and is only a reimbursement of cost incurred by the assessee. The assessee submitted that even as on date, the project is under consideration. The counsel of the assessee further submitted that in the regular assessment for assessment year 2018-19, the assessee has been allowed TDS credit by the Department itself. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who on appreciation of relevant material has correctly concluded that assessee is entitled to credit of TDS deducted in respect of interest income and advance received from Kerala Government during the year under consideration. 9. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. 9.1 In the case of Arvind Murjani Brands (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 137 ITD 173/21 taxmann.com 131 (Mum.), ITAT held that where amount on I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 11 which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing for allowing credit for tax deducted at source in year of receipt of amount, in which tax was deducted at source. 9.2 In the case of Zelan Projects (P.) Ltd.[2015] 63 taxmann.com 334 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the assessee-company was an erection contractor for thermal power stations and it used to sub-contract same to other contractors. Assessee received mobilisation advance against contract procured. While making payment of mobilisation advance to assessee, TDS was deducted by power company under section 194J. Since the said contract was not fully executed during year under consideration, assessee did not declare any income during the year.Theassessee submitted that since no bill was raised on power company, no income was recognised and expenditure incurred on payment made to sub-contractors was shown as work-in-progress.The Assessing Officer allowed assessee credit of said tax deducted.The Ld. Pr. CIT sought to revise assessment on ground that credit for TDS was liable to be given only in respect of income which was assessable to tax in relevant assessment year. The ITAT held that where TDS was deducted from mobilisation advance paid to assessee-erection contractor, credit of same was to be allowed, even if no income was assessable to tax as contract was not fully executed in relevant year. 9.3 In the case of Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd [2010] 124 ITD 394 (Chennai), the ITAT held that when a particular income is received by assessee after deduction of tax at source and said TDS has been duly I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 12 deposited with Government and assessee has received requisite certificate to this effect, then on production of said certificate assessee becomes entitled to credit of TDS, even if assessee has not directly offered said income for tax as assessee considers that same is not liable for tax. In this case, it was held that interest income, being in the nature of capital receipt, has rightly been deducted from the cost of the assets. Therefore, the assessee becomes entitled to credit of TDS even if he has not directly offered the relevant income for tax on the basis that it is not liable to tax. 9.4 In the case of CIT v. Relcom[2015] 62 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi) vendor billed assessee's sister company REPL for work but had mistakenly mentioned assessee's PAN in TDS certificate and, thus, inadvertently crediting assessee's TDS account in 26AS statement, which was PAN based.The Assessee claimed credit of all TDS certificates, including that related to REPL stating that benefit of TDS certificates mistakenly issued in its PAN name had not been availed by REPL.The Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim holding that TDS credit should be allowed to person from whose income deduction was made.The Delhi High Court held that the Revenue having assessed REPL's income in respect of such TDS claim could not deny assessee's claim on mere technical ground that income in respect of said TDS claim was not that of assessee, given that assessee and REPL were sister concerns and REPL had not raised any objection with regard to assessee's TDS claim. 9.5 In the case of IVRCL-KBL (JV) v. ACIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 224 (Andhra Pradesh), Assessee was a joint-venture executing civil I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 13 contract works - It was awarded contracts by Irrigation Department of State Government. Subsequently, those contracts were given by assessee on sub- contract basis to one of its constituents without any margin.The Assessee filed its return claiming refund of tax deducted at source from its bills by State Government. The Assessing Officer opined that since no real work was carried on by assessee, no income had accrued to it; and, therefore, credit for TDS was not allowable in hands of assessee in terms of Rule 37BA(2)(i).The High Court held that since there was no privity of contract between State Government and constituent of assessee i.e. sub-contractor, and, moreover, income from contract entered into between assessee and State Government was assessable only in assessee's hands, credit for tax deducted at source was to be given to assessee alone. 9.6 In the case of Escorts Ltd v DCIT [2007] 15 SOT 368 (Delhi)[11- 05-2007], the ITAT held that once tax is deducted on income credited by assessee in its books of account and a requisite certificate to this effect is issued by deductors after deposit of tax amount in Government treasury, assessee becomes entitled to credit of such TDS while computing tax liability for relevant period. Further, ITAT held that credit for TDS must in every case be given to assessee from whom income-tax was deducted at source and paid to credit of Central Government. If recipient of income considers that he is not liable to tax in respect of income, wholly or partly and, therefore, does not disclose amount of such income in his return, income-tax department cannot refuse to give credit merely by contending that income had not been disclosed in return filed by assessee for assessment year. I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 14 9.7 In the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) in ITA Nos. 610/Ahd/2008, 1834&2054/Ahd/2009, 1835&2055/Ahd/2009 and 2053/Ahd/2009, the Ahmedabad ITAT held that once the TDS deducted, credit of the same to be given to assessees, irrespective of year to which it relates. 9.8 The Hon’ble Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.324/Vizag/2009 for AY 2006-07, dated 03/03/2011 in the case of ACIT vs. Peddu Srinivasa Rao has made the following observations in this regard: 8. We have carefully perused the provisions of section 199 of the Act and according to the pre-amended provisions of section 199, the credit of deduction made in accordance with the relevant provisions of this chapter and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the amount so deducted on the production of the certificate furnished u/s 203 for the assessment made under this Act for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. But in the amended provisions the words "for the assessment year for which such income is assessable" has been omitted. Meaning thereby, that the legislature was quite conscious about the facts and hardships faced by some assessees, while making the amendments in section 199 and in amended provisions nothing has been stated about the year in which the credit of TDS is to be claimed. As per amended provisions of section 199, in sub-section 1, it has been stated that any deductions made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this chapter and I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 15 paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made. Therefore, as per the amended provisions, once the TDS was deducted, a credit of the same to be given to the assessees, irrespective of the year to which it relates. The pre-amended and the amended provisions of section 199 are extracted hereunder: "Section 199: Credit for tax deducted - (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or depositor or owner of property or of unit holder or of the shareholder, as the case may be, and credit shall be given to him for the amount so deducted on the production of the certificate furnished under section 203 in the assessment made under this Act for the assessment year for which such income is assessable: (3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than those referred to in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given. Section 199. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be. (2) I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 16 Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made." 9.9 In the case of NCC Maytas JV v. ACIT [A.Y. 2006-07, ITA No. 812 (Hyd.) of 2013, dated 13-9-2013, the ITAT held that a part of TDS cannot be denied on the ground that the corresponding turnover has not been shown in the A.Y. in which credit is being claimed, if income relating to such TDS has already been offered for taxation in an earlier assessment year. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has allowed the appeal of the assessee after appreciating all relevant factors. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed for assessment year 2017-18. Assessment Year 2018-19 11. Since, the facts and issues for consideration are common for both the assessment years, our observations and conclusions arrived at for assessment year 2017-18 would apply to assessment year 2018-19 as well. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed for assessment year 2018-19. I.T.A Nos. 470 & 525/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd. 17 13. In the combined result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed for both the assessment year 2017-18 and assessment year 2018-19. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-02-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 24/02/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद