State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

144 Taxmann.com 131Supreme Court of India2022#3336 most cited

What is State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

An assessee is required to deduct tax at source on reimbursements, even if the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that such reimbursements were exempt.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax · 144 Taxmann.com 131 · SC · section 10(5) · section 192 · TDS · short deduction · reimbursements · bona fide mistake · assessee in default

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

State Bank of India, Chennai vs. ACIT TDS, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1465/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 State Bank Of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Industrial Finance Branch, Income Tax, 103, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Tds Circle 3(1), [Tan:Ches02510E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(1)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 17 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Passed Under Section 201/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (virtual)For Respondent: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCIT
Section 10(5)Section 192BSection 201

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Industrial Finance Branch, Income Tax, 103, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. TDS Circle 3(1), [TAN:CHES02510E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Re…

The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 288/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.288/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Chief Manager (Admin) Addl. Cit (Tds) बनाम/ State Bank Of India (Rbo) Kanpur 327/44, Gwalior Road, Civil Lines Vs. Jhansi – 284 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan No. Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.288/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Chief Manager (Admin) Addl. CIT (TDS) बनाम/ State Bank of India (RBO) Kanpur 327/44, Gwalior Road, Civil Lines Vs. Jhansi – 284 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./TAN No. AGRS-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement…

The Chief Manager (Administration)State Bank of India, )N, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 287/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. Cit (Tds) State Bank Of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (Rbo), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Identical I.E., Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 201(1)Section 271C

…since the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and not intended to conceal its income. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that this issue was ultimately been held against the assessee by Hon’ble Supreme Court (reported as 144 Taxmann.com 131) holding that the assessee was required to deduct tax at source on such reimbursements. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee, following consistent stand as taken earlier, did not deduct tax at source on impugned reimbursements under a bona-fide belief that irrespec…