TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds decision: Site Restoration Fund not subject to TDS under IT Act</h1> <h3>Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Dehradun Versus State Bank of India</h3> Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Dehradun Versus State Bank of India - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 194A of the IT Act, 1961 on the payment of interest in the Site Restoration Fund Account.2. Determination of whether the Site Restoration Fund Account is a time deposit.3. Liability of the assessee under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 194A on Payment of Interest in the Site Restoration Fund Account:The department contended that the provisions of Section 194A of the IT Act, 1961, which mandates the deduction of tax at source (TDS) on interest payments, should apply to the interest accrued in the Site Restoration Fund (SRF) Account. The CIT(A) had previously held that Section 194A was not applicable, and this appeal challenged that decision.2. Determination of Whether the Site Restoration Fund Account is a Time Deposit:The core of the dispute was whether the SRF Account qualifies as a 'time deposit,' which would necessitate TDS under Section 194A. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 33ABA and the nature of the SRF Account. It was noted that the SRF Account is not for a fixed period but is contingent upon specific conditions related to the business of prospecting, extraction, or production of petroleum or natural gas. The Tribunal cited its previous judgment in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, where it was held that the SRF Account does not qualify as a time deposit. The Tribunal reiterated that the SRF Account's withdrawal conditions and the nature of deposits do not align with the definition of a 'time deposit' as per Section 194A(3)(vii).3. Liability of the Assessee under Section 201(1) and 201(1A):Given that the SRF Account was determined not to be a time deposit, the provisions of Section 194A(1) were deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the assessee could not be held liable for non-deduction of TDS under Section 201(1). Furthermore, since there was no liability under Section 201(1), the associated interest liability under Section 201(1A) also did not arise. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), amounting to Rs. 1,05,68,13,294/-.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the provisions of Section 194A do not apply to the interest accrued in the SRF Account. Consequently, the appeal of the department was dismissed.Final Judgment:The appeal of the department is dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. There is no liability on the assessee under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 10/11/2017)
TaxTMI 