PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,AMBALA vs. ITO TDS, KARNAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which extended the limitation period, was prospective. Therefore, the order passed by the AO was barred by the original limitation period.
What were the facts?
The assessee bank filed its TDS return on 07.05.2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) on 31.10.2019. The assessee contended that this order was time-barred.
What were the issues?
Whether the order passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation, considering the prospective nature of the amendment to Section 201(3).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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.
- 535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices v. UOI163 citing385 ITR 497 · 2016 · HC
- K.M. Sharma v. ITO136 citing254 ITR 772 · 2002 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26.05.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2013-14. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :-
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned commissioner of income tax (TDS) under section 250 of the act is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts as it is time barred as per limitation given under section 201(3).
The learned A.O has erred on law and facts by passing order in haste without giving any opportunity of being heard and is against the principle of natural justice.
That the learned AO has erred on law and facts by passing Order under section 201(1)'and 201(1A) which is bad in law as section 201(1) and 201(1A) are for
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.
- Cantabil Retail India Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT Circle-73(1), New DelhiDelhi31 May 2023Allowed
Also relies on K.M. Sharma v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation. The amendment to Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act, which extended the time limit, was prospective and could not revive a peri...
- Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd, New… vs DCIT, Circle-73(1), DelhiDelhi31 Dec 2021Allowed
Also relies on K.M. Sharma v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that CAM charges paid by the assessee were not part of rent and thus tax was correctly deducted under Section 194C, not Section 194I. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-de...
- M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd., Noida vs ACIT (TDS), NoidaDelhi20 Jul 2020Allowed
Also relies on K.M. Sharma v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision on identical facts and for the same assessment year, the Tribunal q...
- DCIT, Laxminagar vs Turner General Entertainment Networks India…Delhi14 Nov 2024Dismissed
Also relies on K.M. Sharma v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. The assessment was made after the expiry of two years from the financial year in which the TDS statements were ...
- Shri Jawahir Ravichandra Mehta, Dubai(Uae) vs The DCIT, Circle-2, RajkotRajkot27 Dec 2021Allowed
Also relies on K.M. Sharma v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation, as amendments to Section 149 were not retrospective and could not revive expired time limits. Therefore, the reassessment proc...
More judgments on Section 201
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Santosh Kumar Bhogi, Visakhapatnam vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 253/VIZ/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Himanshusinhji Jyotendrasinhji Jadeja… vs DCIT/ACIT Circle-1(1), RKT, RajkotITA 325/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
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
