KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, HUBLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the orders passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were barred by limitation as statements under section 200 were filed. For assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the orders were within the time limit. The ground regarding no obligation to deduct TDS if the payee paid tax was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a bank, was found to have defaulted in deducting TDS on interest paid to customers by its various branches. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) against the head office. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the orders passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were barred by limitation, and whether there was an obligation to deduct TDS if the payee had already paid tax.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 194A,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 200,Section 201(3)
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.
- Tata Teleservices v. UOI43 citing66 Taxmann.com 157 · 2016 · HC
- 66 Taxmann 1574 citing66 Taxmann 157 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Per Bench These appeals by the assesses are directed against the common orders of CIT(Appeals), Hubli dated 05/05/2017 for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. 2. Common grounds of Appeals has been raised in all these Appeals. For the sake of brevity, we reproduce grounds in ITA no. 1526/Bang/2017 below:-
“1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli passed under section 250 read with section 254 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
ITA No.1526 to 1529/Bang/2017 2. The learned Com
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 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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026