SHRI CHAMUNDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-2, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) allows a payer to not be treated as an assessee in default if the recipient has included the sum in their income, paid tax thereon, and furnished a certificate. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a credit cooperative society, paid commission to its agents without deducting TDS under Section 194H. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as being in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) and levied a demand. The assessee argued that the agents were quasi-employees and had already paid tax on the commission.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee can be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS when the recipients have already offered the income to tax. Applicability of the proviso to Section 201(1) retrospectively.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.177 citing61 Taxmann.com 45 · 2015 · HC
- Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT104 citing45 Taxmann.com 555 · 2014 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Rajkot [Ld.CIT(A) in short] dated 29/11/2017 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dated 30/03/2016 relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-2010. Asstt. Year 2009-10 2
The assessee has raised the follo
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 194H
- Mahesh Pulaveni, Adilabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 991/HYD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026