SAIL REFRACTORY UNIT,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. ITO, TDS WARD, BOKARO STEEL CITY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself acknowledged TDS was deducted on actual payments. The issue of whether TDS should have been deducted on mere provisions requires further factual and legal adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee was treated as an assessee in default for not paying TDS after deducting it. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had deducted TDS on actual payments, not mere provisions.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS is deductible on mere provisions or only on actual payments. The need for factual and legal adjudication on this point.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA
Date of hearing 03.03.2020 Date of pronouncement 03.03.2020 O R D E R S. S. Godara(Oral): These assessee’s three appeals for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh, Jharkhand dated 26.09.2018 passed in case no.10439,10440&10441/HZB/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard Dr. Bhanu Giri, learned authorised representative for assessee and Smt. Nisha Singhmarr appearing for the department.
The assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised in the instant three appeals challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating it as the assessee in default to the tune of Rs.9,17,348/-, Rs.962,126/- and Rs.7,82,972/-; assessment year wise, respectively after holding it to have deducted but not paid the TDS. I notice from a perusal of CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion that he himself has held the assessee to have deducted TDS on actual payments than mere provisions. I observe in these facts that the instant issue as to whether the assessee ought to have deducted TDS on mere provisions as well requires factual as well legal adjudication at the Assessing Officer’s end. I therefore restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer. Sail Refractory Unit Learned counsel undertakes to appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 31.05.2020 for further proceedings.
These assessee’s three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2020.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Rudra Pratap Singh vs. The Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026