STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAMNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on Leave Travel Concession when it was operating under binding interim judicial directions. The demand raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, State Bank of India, treated Leave Fare Concession and Leave Travel Concession provided to employees as exempt under section 10(5) and did not deduct TDS under section 192. The DCIT treated the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and raised a demand.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee can be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on Leave Travel Concession when bound by judicial orders. Whether the demand under section 201(1) is sustainable in such circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(5),Section 192,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 271(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot
Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Siliguri vide order dated 11.12.2025 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises out of an order passed by DCIT Circle, TDS, Rajkot u/s. 201 of the Act, dated 20.10.2023. State Bank of India v.
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 10(5)
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India, Ahmedabad vs ITO, TDS, BharuchITA 536/SRT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India, Ahmedabad vs ITO, TDS, BharuchITA 535/SRT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Ahmedabad vs ITO, TDS Ward 2, SuratITA 472/SRT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Ahmedabad vs ITO, TDS Ward-3, SuratITA 471/SRT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026