CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

287 ITR 354High Court2006#8374 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. authority for?

Interest under section 201(1A) cannot be charged when the payee has already paid more tax than the tax payable and a refund is due, even after considering TDS.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd · section 201(1A) · interest · TDS · payee paid excess tax · refund due · assessee in default

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1A)Section 195Section 38Section 201(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 206c(6)section 206c(6a)section 206c(7)section 38right to receivemlisection 206csection 206assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 201(1a)section 194c

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

ITO (TDS) Alwar, Alwar vs. Shri Baba Mohan Ramji Kalikholi Walamilkpur Gurjar, Alwar

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 746/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

…the basic tax withholding liability under section 201(1) is quashed, the interest liability under section 201(1A), being consequential in nature, also stand quashed. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. CIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) Hon'ble High Court upheld the findings of Hon'ble ITAT by holding that when the assessee has paid more tax than the tax payable and refund is due, even (after) tax deducted at source is counted, in such case, there is no justification for charging interest under section 201(14). CIT Vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Lt…

ITO (TDS) Alwar, Alwar vs. Shri Baba Mohan Ramji Kalikholi Walamilkpur Gurjar, Alwar

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 745/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

…the basic tax withholding liability under section 201(1) is quashed, the interest liability under section 201(1A), being consequential in nature, also stand quashed. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. CIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) Hon'ble High Court upheld the findings of Hon'ble ITAT by holding that when the assessee has paid more tax than the tax payable and refund is due, even (after) tax deducted at source is counted, in such case, there is no justification for charging interest under section 201(14). CIT Vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Lt…

ITO (TDS) Alwar, Alwar vs. Shri Baba Mohan Ramji Kalikholi Walamilkpur Gurjar, Alwar

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

…the basic tax withholding liability under section 201(1) is quashed, the interest liability under section 201(1A), being consequential in nature, also stand quashed. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. CIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) Hon'ble High Court upheld the findings of Hon'ble ITAT by holding that when the assessee has paid more tax than the tax payable and refund is due, even (after) tax deducted at source is counted, in such case, there is no justification for charging interest under section 201(14). CIT Vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Lt…

ITO(TDS) Alwar, Alwar vs. Shri Baba Mohan Ramji Kalikholi Walamilkpur Gurjar, Alwar

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

…the basic tax withholding liability under section 201(1) is quashed, the interest liability under section 201(1A), being consequential in nature, also stand quashed. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. CIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) Hon'ble High Court upheld the findings of Hon'ble ITAT by holding that when the assessee has paid more tax than the tax payable and refund is due, even (after) tax deducted at source is counted, in such case, there is no justification for charging interest under section 201(14). CIT Vs. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Lt…

Sh. Mohd. Javed Belim, Jodhpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Jodhpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 22/JODH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 20 to 22/Jodh/2017 Assessment Years.: 2008-09 to 2010-11 Sh. Mohd. Javed Belim, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of C/o Rajendra Jain, Adv. 106, Income Tax, Akshay Deep Complex 5th B (TDS),Jodhpur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. [PAN: AEMPB0363H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Smt. Raksha Birla, CA. Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Bench: A batch of three (03) appeals of the same…

Sh. Mohd. Javed Belim, Jodhpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Jodhpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 21/JODH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 20 to 22/Jodh/2017 Assessment Years.: 2008-09 to 2010-11 Sh. Mohd. Javed Belim, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of C/o Rajendra Jain, Adv. 106, Income Tax, Akshay Deep Complex 5th B (TDS),Jodhpur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. [PAN: AEMPB0363H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Smt. Raksha Birla, CA. Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Bench: A batch of three (03) appeals of the same…

Sh. Mohd. Javed Belim, Jodhpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Jodhpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 20/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 20 to 22/Jodh/2017 Assessment Years.: 2008-09 to 2010-11 Sh. Mohd. Javed Belim, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of C/o Rajendra Jain, Adv. 106, Income Tax, Akshay Deep Complex 5th B (TDS),Jodhpur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. [PAN: AEMPB0363H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Smt. Raksha Birla, CA. Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Bench: A batch of three (03) appeals of the same…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…nal could have at all reopened the appeal to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record.—CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 119 set aside.” 4.2 In the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj), which is also binding upon the ITO, it was held that: “When the payee has paid more tax than the tax payable by it and refund is due to it as a result of TDS by the assessee, interest under s. 201(1A) cannot be charged.” Not only the tax can be recovered by the Revenue twice but even no interest can be charged by the revenue from the payer…

M/S. Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-TDS, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 343/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri P.C. ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta JCIT DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 2O

…lready paid by them. However, the appellant has not enclosed copies of returns of any of the buyers and therefore, the appellant's claim is not substantiated. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajashan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj) considered the issue of levy of interest u/s. 201(1 A) and held that when the assessee has paid more tax than the tax payable and refund is due, even tax deducted at source is counted, in such case there is no justification for charging interest u/s. 201(1 A). The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is equally applicable to…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, TDS Circle, Ward-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1446/HYD/2015[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrasekhar
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1445 & 1446/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Idea Cellular Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle, PAN – AACB 2100P Ward - 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ronak G. Doshi Revenue by : Shri P. Chandrasekhar Date of hearing : 19-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 20-07-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orde…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, TDS Circle, Ward-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1445/HYD/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrasekhar
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1445 & 1446/Hyd/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Idea Cellular Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle, PAN – AACB 2100P Ward - 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ronak G. Doshi Revenue by : Shri P. Chandrasekhar Date of hearing : 19-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 20-07-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orde…

Cea Soma Cici Jv, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for

ITA 777/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Ramakrishna R. Lingsur, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 133ASection 197Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…, wherein the AO assessed at Nil income and observed that credit for prepaid taxes (Rs.1,37,21,546/-) is allowed after verification etc and relying on the Rajasthan High Court order in CIT v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran in IT(IT)A.777/Bang/2016 Page - 6 287 ITR 354 and the Agra Tribunal decision in ITA No 448 to 454/Agra/2011 for ays 2001-02 to 2007-08 dt 20.6.2014 it is submitted that levy of interest u/s 201 (1A) in its case is not warranted. 04. The relevant portion of the order from the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran in 287 ITR 354 is extracted as under : “7. After peru…

M/S the Right Address Ltd., Kolkata vs. The Income Tax Officer, (TDS) Ward-59(4) (TDS), Kolkata Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

…efund of income tax along with due Interest. This has been explained in the following judgments: The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal in the admission stage in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 354 (Raj) "Deduction of tax at source-Failure to deduct-Levy of interest-Finding that recipient had claimed refund due to tax deducted at source-Interest could not be levied-Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 201(lA).” "The following question is proposed for admission of the appeal: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justifi…