IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, JAVED IQBAL WANI, JJ.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appellant
Versus
M/S The J&K Bank Ltd. - Respondent
ITA No. 6 of 2017 c/w ITA No. 4 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2023
TDS - Tax Deduction at Source - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 194A
Fact of the Case:
The appeals concern the obligation to deduct TDS on interest payments made to the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) by an assessee-Bank. The Assessing Authority held that the bank was obligated to deduct TDS, while the CIT(A) accepted the plea of the bank. The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) based on earlier judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bank was not obligated to deduct TDS on interest payments made to the JDA, as the JDA is a corporation established by the State Act and is exempt from the provisions of Section 194A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issues: The main issue was whether the ITAT committed an error of law in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to the JDA, a taxable entity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur vs. Canara Bank, where it was ruled that entities established by or under an Act of the State Legislature are exempt from the provisions of Section 194A(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the bank was not obligated to deduct TDS on interest payments made to the JDA, as the JDA is a corporation established by the State Act and is exempt from the provisions of Section 194A(1) of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. These two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] are directed against a common order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Jalandhar [‘ITAT’] in ITA No. 74(Asr)/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and ITA No. 137 (Asr)//2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Both the appeals have been admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law :
2. For both the assessment years i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1 Jammu [‘the Assessing Authority’] decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and held that the Jammu Development Authority [‘JDA’] is a Local Authority which is not exempt from payment of tax and, therefore, the assessee-Bank was under an obligation to deduct the TDS on the deposits of JDA. Reliance was placed by the Assessing Authority on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 283 ITR 97 (SC). On appeal by the assessee-Bank against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu [‘CIT(A)’] accepted the plea of the assessee-Bank and held that, it was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments made to the JDA. The CIT (A) relied upon an earlier judgment of ITAT, Amritsar Bench passed in respect of the assessee-Bank in respect of its Shalamar and Gandhi Nagar, Jammu Branches.
3. The issue, inter alia, fell for consideration before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee-bank. While dealing with the issue in question, the ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT (A), relying upon its earlier decision passed in the case of assessee for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The ITAT had upheld the deletion of addition for those years by holding as under :
4. This is how the plea of the bank came to be finally accepted by the ITAT while deciding the appeals vide its order dated 28.02.2017. It is this order of the ITAT which is subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
5. The appeals have been preferred on multiple grounds, but this Court, after hearing both the sides, has found only one substantial question of law involved for adjudication in these appeals which we have already reproduced hereinabove.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to first set out Section 194A of the Act.
(I) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any ot
Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Union of India and others
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur vs. Canara Bank
Dalco Engineering Private Limited vs. Satish Prabhakar Padhye and Others
Entities established by or under an Act of the State Legislature are exempt from the provisions of Section 194A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that interest income accrued on Term Deposit Accounts of the JKSRRDA was exempt from TDS under Section 196 of the Income Tax Act and that JKSRRDA, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle established in a previous judgment to determine the requirement of tax deduction at source on payments of interest....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 194A and the notification dated 22 October 1970 to payments made to statutory bodies, as interpreted in the context....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.