M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), LTU, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from TDS liability under Section 201. However, if TDS is deducted in the subsequent year when payments are made, the demand under Section 201(1) is liable to be cancelled, but interest under Section 201(1A) is payable due to delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in automobile manufacturing, made year-end provisions for various expenses without deducting tax at source. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for failure to deduct TDS, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is liable for TDS on year-end provisions when the payees are not identified, and if disallowance under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) absolves TDS liability.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 40(a)(i),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- Industrial Development Bank of India v. ITO36 citing107 ITD 45 · 2007 · ITAT
- UCO Bank v. Union of India28 citing369 ITR 335 · 2014 · HC
- Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. DCIT23 citing154 ITD 827 · 2015 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Ld CIT(A)-10, Bengaluru and they relate to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the demand raised by the AO u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in both the years. Since the issues urged in these appeals are identical in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for t
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Embassy Property Developments Private… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), BangaloreBangalore23 Feb 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that TDS is required to be deducted on year-end provisions that are ascertained liabilities, even if credited to a 'Provision' account instead of the party's account. However, the demand raised under se...
- M/S. Volvo Group India Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer (OSD) Large Tax Payers…Bangalore25 Aug 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that if the assessee deducts and deposits TDS in the subsequent year when invoices are accounted for, the demand under section 201(1) should be cancelled. However, interest under section 201(1A) is levi...
- United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore1 Jun 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from liability under Section 201 when deemed an assessee in default. However, if tax is deducted at source in th...
- M/S Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), BangaloreBangalore25 Mar 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the demand raised under section 201(1) is liable to be cancelled if TDS was deducted at the time of accounting invoices or making payment in the succeeding year. However, the assessee would be liab...
- M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private… vs Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ltu, BangaloreBangalore23 Mar 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from TDS liability under Section 201. However, if TDS is deducted in the subsequent year when payments are made, the dema...
More judgments on Section 40(a)(i)
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
- DDIT(It)- 1(1), Mumbai vs M/S. American Express Bank Ltd., MumbaiITA 5667/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1116/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6198/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
