THE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, TIRUNELVELI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawal for Pongal Cash Gift does not constitute income in the hands of PACBs, and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194N. The PACBs, acting as Business Correspondents, qualify for exemption. The AO is directed to verify filings and apply the beneficial third proviso to Section 194N.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a District Central Cooperative Bank, failed to deduct TDS under Section 194N on cash withdrawals made by PACBs for distribution of Pongal Cash Gift. The demand was raised for assessment year 2020-21.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS under Section 194N is leviable on cash withdrawals for distribution of Pongal Cash Gift by PACBs, and if PACBs qualify for exemption as Business Correspondents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194N,Section 194N(iii),Section 40(a)(ia)
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.
- Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT398 citing224 ITR 677 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.294 citing49 Taxmann.com 249 · 2014 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI HON’BLE AMITABH SHUKLA
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 11.03.2020 and revised on 19.03.2024, for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein a demand of Rs.2,81,08,896/- (later revised to Rs.4,08,85,687/-) was raised on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 194N.
The District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. :- 2 -
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.
- Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority… vs J.C.I.T Range - 50, KolkataKolkata18 Aug 2017Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 12A(2) of the Act should be construed retrospectively, allowing the assessee exemption under Sections 11 and 12 for the assessment years in question. Consequently, the regu...
- Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs National E-Assessment Centre, DelhiVaranasi7 Jul 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, the assessee is entitled to a deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were consi...
- Shri Hingulambika Education Society… vs ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, KalburgiBangalore22 Jun 2023Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 during the processing of the return under Section 143(1) was not permissible as it involved a debatable and controversial issue requiring deeper examination...
- Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Exemptions… vs M/S Centre Fpr Cellular and Molecular…Bangalore28 Aug 2019Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the appeal proceedings are a continuation of the original assessment proceedings. Following the Rajasthan High Court's decision, it was held that the grant of registration under Section 12AA during...
- Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, Navsari vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, SuratSurat7 Feb 2020Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act is retrospective in nature. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 should be granted even if registration was obtained after the assessm...
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
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
