ACIT CIRCLE 1, OOTY vs. NILGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., OOTACAMUND
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while a co-operative bank is not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to members, the assessee failed to provide evidence for this. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to prove the interest payments were made to its members.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of interest disallowance by the CIT(A). The assessee, a co-operative bank, failed to prove that the interest paid was exclusively to its members, which was a condition for not deducting TDS under Section 194A.
What were the issues?
Whether the co-operative bank could claim interest expenditure without proving that the interest was paid only to its members, thereby avoiding TDS obligations.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Coimbatore\nDistrict Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO16 citing382 ITR 266 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted disallowance of interest of �29,44,42,416/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer.
Ld. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that assessee though 2. it was a co-operative bank, could not show that the interest of ITA No.1851 /2018 :- 2 -:
�29,44,42,416/- was paid to its members. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source u/s.194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) where interest was paid on deposits accepted from non-members. Contention of the ld. Departmental Representative was that assessee was required to produce evidence to prove the interest payments to have been made only to its members. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had refused to do so, stating that number of accounts ran into thousands and it would not be possible for them to submit such details.
As per the ld. Departmental Representative, despite this reluctance to prove the interest payment to have been made to its members, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. ITO, (2016) 382 ITR 266.
Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that 3.
details of the interest payments were furnished by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). According to him, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim after verifying such details. Nevertheless, ld. Authorised
ITA No.1851 /2018 :- 3 -:
Representative submitted that assessee was willing to provide the details to the ld. Assessing Officer, if required. Ld. Authorised Representative also filed an undertaking dated even on behalf of the assessee, agreeing to this.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 4. orders of the authorities below. By virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Coimbatore District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd (supra), there can be no doubt that a Co-operative Society carrying on business of banking the approval of Reserve Bank of India is not liable to deduct tax at source as stipulated u/s.194A of the Act, on interest paid to its members. Ld. Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim due to the failure of the assessee to show that the interest payment of �29,44,42,416/- debited by it, in its profit and loss account was to its members. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) however, overlooked this aspect and allowed the claim.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessee can be given one more opportunity for proving that interest payments were made to its members. We also take note of the undertaking given by the ld. Authorised Representative in this regard.
We therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue relating to interest payments of �29,44,42,416/- made by the ITA No.1851 /2018 :- 4 -: assessee, back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 29th day of October, 2018, at Chennai.
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 →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026