MARATHWADA URBAN BANK CO OP ASSOCIATION LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA and ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that various sub-sections of a provision must be read in harmony to avoid conflict and ensure no provision becomes superfluous. It analyzed Section 194A, noting that it mandates TDS on interest payments, with exceptions carved out in sub-section (3). The Tribunal found that Section 194A(3)(viia)(a) and (b) specify exempted banks and deposits, excluding urban co-operative banks from certain exemptions and limiting others to non-time deposits. It clarified that Section 194A(3)(iii)(v) applies only to income credited by a co-operative society to its member or another co-operative society, not generally. The Tribunal concluded that interest above Rs. 10,000/- credited on time deposits by an urban co-operative bank to an account holder would be liable for TDS. Conversely, interest credited below Rs. 10,000/- on time deposits would not be liable for TDS. The impugned Circular was interpreted to align with this position, meaning TDS is deductible only if interest on time deposits exceeds Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal noted the Assistant Solicitor General conceded that TDS is not required for amounts below Rs. 10,000/-. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Marathwada Urban Bank Co-op. Association Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a circular dated 23.10.2003 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. The circular directed the deduction of tax at source (TDS) on deposits. The petitioner argued that this circular was contrary to the provisions of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically sub-sections (3)(b) and (3)(iii)(v), which they contended exempted urban co-operative societies from TDS obligations on income credited to account holders and members, respectively. The respondents, including the Union of India and various income tax authorities, contended that the circular merely clarified the legal position under Section 194A, particularly sub-section (3)(viia), which they argued exempted only specific categories of banks and certain types of deposits.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned Circular dated 23.10.2003, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, is in consonance with the provisions of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning the deduction of tax at source on deposits made with urban co-operative banks? (Question of law) Assessee's Arguments: - The Circular is not in consonance with Section 194A(3)(b) and Section 194A(3)(iii)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Administrative instructions (Circulars) cannot override statutory provisions. - Taxing statutes must be construed strictly as per their literal interpretation. - Section 194A(3)(iii)(v) exempts co-operative societies from deducting TDS from income credited to a member or another co-operative society. - Reliance on Section 194A(3)(viia) by the revenue is misplaced. - Relied on Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2000 SC 109. Revenue's Arguments: - The Circular clarifies the legal position under Section 194A. - Section 194A(3)(viia) is specific and exempts only certain categories of banks and deposits (other than time deposits). - Income accrued on time deposits by urban co-operative banks is not exempted from Section 194A(1).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
(1) W.P. No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4935 OF 2003 The Marathwada Urban Bank Co-op. Association Limited, through its Secretary ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Union of India Through Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes), New Delhi 2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Aayakar Bhavan, Cantonment, Aurangabad 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad 4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1 (3), Jalna, District Jalna 5. The Income Tax Officer, District Latur 6. The Income Tax Officer, District Nanded 7. The Income Tax Officer, District Parbhani 8. The Income Tax Officer, District Hingoli
(2) W.P. No. 9. The Income Tax Officer, District Beed 10. The Income Tax Officer, District Osmanabad 11. The Income Tax Officer, District Aurangabad 12. Additional Commissioner Income Tax, Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad 13. The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS Mr Atul R. Kale, Advocate holding for Mr A.R. Joshi for petitioner; Mr Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondents no.1 to 12; Mr S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for respondent no.13
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE : 21st April, 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) The petitioner impugns the Circular dated 23.10.2003, issued by respondent no.3, thereby directing deduction of tax at source on the deposits. 2. Mr Kale, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Circular is not in consonance with the provisions of section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax, by administrative instructions, cannot issue Circulars which are
(3) W.P. No. contrary to the statutory provisions. According to the learned Counsel, taxing statute will have to be construed strictly as per its literal interpretation. Section 194A (3) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 exempts the urban co-operative societies from deducting TDS in the income credited to the account holders. According to the learned Counsel, even section 194A (3) (iii) (v) exempts a co-operative society from deducting TDS from income credited, or paid by a co-operative society to a member thereof, or to any other co-operative society. In view of said specific provision, the impugned Circular could not have been issued. Reliance placed by the respondents on section 194A (3) (viia) is misplaced and not in consonance with the rules of interpretation. The leaned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mathuram Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 109. 3. Mr Sharma, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax, vide the impugned Circular has only clarified the legal position as covered under section 194A of the Income Tax Act. Section 194A (3) (viia) is clear and specific. The exemption is given to the co-operative societies carrying on banking business as specified in said clause (viia) and not to any other Banks. The exemption also is given to deposits other than the time deposits. The income accrued, i.e. the interest paid by urban co-operative Bank on a time deposit is not exempted from the operation of provisions of section 194A
(4) W.P. No. (1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. We have gone through the said provision and the impugned Circular. Section 194A mandates that any person other than an individual or a Hindu Undivided family responsible for paying any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee, to deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force. By virtue of sub-section (3) of section 194A, exception is carved out. The further proviso to section 194A (3) clarifies the situation as to how the income and the limits of the income as detailed in section 194 (3) is to be construed. 5. Section 194A (3) deals with exemptions. It lays down that upto an amount of Rs.10,000/- where the payee is a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of section 194A , requiring the said co-operative society doing a banking business to deduct TDS, will not apply. The said provision exempting operation of section 194A (3) is limited to the extent of the income being paid by the payee to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and no further. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on sub-clause (v) of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A is misplaced. The said sub-clause (v) would only apply to such income credited or paid by a co-operative society to a member thereof or to any other co-operative society. Sub-clause
(5) W.P. No. (viia) (a) and (b) lays down the specific categories of the banks which are exempted from deducting TDS. The income accrued on the deposits other than the time deposits made after 1st day of July, 1995 is not exempted from deducting the TDS by urban co-operative Bank. Sub- clause (viia) (a) does not include urban co-operative Bank and sub clause (b) of clause (viia) limits the exemption to deposits other than the time deposits. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that various sub-sections in a provision have to be read in harmony. A head on collision between sub- sections of the same provision has to be avoided. They cannot be read in a manner which would render one provision superfluous or a dead letter. Reading clause (viia) and clause (v) conjointly and in harmony, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that interest above Rs. 10,000/- credited on time deposits by urban co-operative Bank in the account of the payee would be liable for deduction of the tax at source, meaning thereby that an interest credited below Rs.10,000/- by urban co- operative Bank will not be liable for the tax deducted at source. Even the learned Asstt. Solicitor General conceded to the position that for amount below Rs.10,000/-, TDS is not required to be deducted by the urban co- operative Bank.
(6) W.P. No. 7. The Circular impugned does not clarify the aforesaid aspect. The Circular will have to be read in a manner that if the amount more than Rs. 10,000/- is credited as an interest on time deposits, then the urban co- operative Bank is liable to deduct the TDS as is laid down in said provisions of section 194A and that urban co-operative Bank is not liable to deduct TDS if the interest accrued on time deposits is less than Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Writ Petition accordingly is disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) amj/wp4935.03
More judgments on Section 194A
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Welspun Aunta Simaria Project Private… vs DCIT, Circle-78(1), DelhiITA 6559/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Lakhmanbhai Maru, Vadodara vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Aayakar…ITA 1046/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Hexad Infosoft Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 1713/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Hexad Infosoft Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 1712/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Sampat Raj Jain vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.Gauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026