Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ To Call / Whatsapp, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
☰   Show Results ❯
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS on Interest Paid by Co-operative Banks to Non-Member Co-operative Societies under Section 194A(3...
    Input Tax Credit and Supplier Non-Payment: Statutory Limits on Mechanical Reversal Under Section 16(...
    Case Laws Customs
    Appellate Jurisdiction over Goods Imported as Baggage under Sections 129A and 129DD of the Customs A...
    Monetary Limits for Departmental GST Appeals under Section 120 and Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST
    Alleged Re-use of E-Way Bills under Section 129: Evidentiary Burden in Detention Proceedings
    Turnover of Zero-Rated Supply Under Rule 89(4): Invoice Period and Subsequent Physical Export
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Speaking Disposal of Objections Before Scrutiny Under Sections 143(2) and ...
    Suppression of Facts under Explanation 2 to Section 74 of the CGST Act in Cases of Ineligible Input ...
    Case Laws Customs
    Classification of Low-Ethoxylated Non-Ionic Fatty Alcohol Ethoxylates under Headings 3402 and 3824
    Case Laws Customs
    Seizure and Detention of Imported Cars under Sections 110, 110A and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962
    Case Laws Companies Law
    Lifting the Corporate Veil Where Promoter Shareholding Is Allegedly Dissipated Despite Judicial Assu...
    Consolidated Show Cause Notices under Sections 73 and 74 and Taxability of School Affiliation Servic...
    Fraudulent Input Tax Credit from Non-Existent Suppliers: Application of Sections 16, 74 and 155 of t...
    Case Laws Money Laundering
    Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration and Bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Ac...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Prospective Operation of Section 56(2)(x)(b) in Stamp-Value Difference Cases Involving Immovable Pro...
    Seizure of Cash under Section 67 of the CGST Act and Interest on Illegal Retention
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Disallowance of Salary Expenditure for Allegedly Non-Genuine Services under Section 37
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Fair Market Value of Unquoted Equity Shares Under Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA
    Refund of Excess IGST Paid on Exports Following Clerical Error in FORM GSTR-3B
    Revocation of Cancellation of GST Registration for Non-Filing of Returns under Section 30 and Rule 2...
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Inter-co-operative society interest exemption preserves non-deduction by co-operative banks when depositors are co-operative societies under the statutory withholding framework.
Section 194A(3)(v) separately addresses interest paid by a co-operative bank to a member and interest paid by a co-operative society to another co-operative society. The exclusion of co-operative banks is confined to the member-payment limb; a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for the inter-co-operative society limb. Paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015 preserves non-deduction, including time-deposit interest, where the depositor is a co-operative society. Section 80P does not determine this withholding obligation.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Input tax credit reversal requires evidence linking supplier non-payment to recipient ineligibility and a reasoned statutory inquiry.
Input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) remains conditional on actual payment of tax to Government, but supplier non-payment or retrospective cancellation cannot by itself justify reversal. The recipient must establish eligibility through transactional evidence, while the proper officer must investigate the particular supply, disclose supplier-default and recovery material, apply the law applicable to the relevant period, and issue a reasoned, notice-bound determination. Supplier recovery status and protection against duplicate collection are material considerations.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Baggage-related customs appeals proceed through statutory revision when the jurisdictional exclusion applies to passenger imports.
The first proviso to section 129A(1) excludes Appellate Tribunal jurisdiction over an order under section 128A relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The decisive issue is the order's connection with baggage, not disputes concerning confiscation, declaration, duty, personal effects, concealment, concession, or penalty. Articles carried by an international passenger in luggage or on the person may constitute baggage. Section 129DD provides revision before the Central Government, ordinarily within three months, subject to a further period on sufficient cause.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Departmental GST appeal monetary limits regulate officers, while composite orders and proven recurring issues may permit appeals.
Sections 120 and 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 make monetary-limit directions binding within the Central tax hierarchy, while they regulate the executive decision to file rather than create an inflexible jurisdictional bar before the Tribunal. In a composite order disposing of multiple appeals or demand notices, the relevant amount is the total disputed tax, interest, penalty or late fee, as applicable. The recurring or interpretative-issue exclusion requires a reasoned, case-specific basis, and Commissioner authorisation does not itself establish compliance with the litigation policy.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
E-way bill re-use allegations require corroborated proof identifying the same goods; vehicle movement alone cannot establish contravention.
Alleged re-use of invoices and e-way bills requires the seizing authority to establish through positive, corroborated evidence that the intercepted goods are the same consignment previously transported under those documents. Toll data, vehicle movements and photographs may justify inquiry but do not alone prove prior delivery, identity of goods or re-use. Where invoices and e-way bills accompany the goods and physical verification shows no discrepancy, the authority must investigate and address any explanation of a different earlier consignment. Cases involving absent or expired transport documents remain factually distinct.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Zero-rated supply turnover includes export invoices from the refund period when actual export is subsequently established under bond or LUT.
Under Rule 89(4), invoice values for goods invoiced before or at removal for export under bond or Letter of Undertaking may be included in zero-rated turnover for the relevant refund period, although physical export occurs later. The invoice and removal determine period-wise attribution for the refund formula, while actual export remains essential to sustain the claim. Shipping bills, bills of export and related export records must correlate with the export invoices to establish that the goods were ultimately exported. Compliance with valuation, input tax credit eligibility and bond or Letter of Undertaking conditions remains necessary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reassessment objections require speaking disposal and a four-week pause before scrutiny or information requests can begin.
Under the pre-amendment Section 148 framework, reassessment jurisdiction must be resolved before merits-stage scrutiny begins. The Assessing Officer must furnish recorded reasons when requested, permit objections, and decide them through a separate speaking order. A Section 143(2) notice commences scrutiny, while a Section 142(1) notice is a substantive inquiry step; neither may issue before objections are decided. Following rejection, a four-week period from service of the speaking order must be allowed before further reassessment action, preserving an effective opportunity to challenge reopening.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Suppression of facts requires proof of deliberate tax evasion; ineligible input tax credit alone cannot support enhanced proceedings.
Section 74 permits enhanced tax determination for wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax is established. Wrong or ineligible credit is distinct from substantive credit eligibility and cannot, without evidence of deliberate conduct and intent, amount to suppression. Under historical Explanation 2, suppression required either omitted information legally required in prescribed filings or failure to provide information sought in writing; both operate subject to the statutory evasion requirement. Disclosed reconciliations and portal records materially weaken a bare allegation of non-declaration.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Organic surface-active agent classification requires water solubility and stability; phase-separating low-ethoxylated products fall outside Heading 3402.
Classification of low-ethoxylated non-ionic fatty alcohol ethoxylates under Heading 3402 requires satisfaction of the cumulative water test in Chapter Note 3. At the prescribed concentration, temperature, and standing period, the product must both remain a transparent or translucent liquid, or stable emulsion, without phase separation and reduce water surface tension to the stated threshold. Non-ionic character or surface activity alone is insufficient. Where a low-ethoxylated product separates into layers and fails the solubility and stability requirement, Heading 3824 may be considered after exclusion from Heading 3402.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Lawful customs seizure requires recorded confiscation grounds, formal restraint where needed, and timely notice; detention cannot bypass safeguards.
Customs seizure of an imported car requires recorded reason to believe that it is liable to confiscation. A panchnama restraint cannot replace a lawful seizure order, an undertaking where seized goods remain in custody, or a served non-dealing order where seizure is impracticable. Section 110(2) requires prompt notice under Section 124, subject only to the prescribed extension mechanism. Prolonged effective detention cannot postpone those safeguards. Provisional release under Section 110A applies only to goods lawfully seized and cannot validate an earlier detention without statutory authority.
Case Laws Companies Law
Show AI Summary
Corporate veil-piercing permits forensic scrutiny in execution where promoter-controlled entities may dissipate shareholding despite judicial assurances.
Corporate veil-piercing in execution is an exceptional response where promoters allegedly use layered entities and securities transactions to deplete shareholding represented as security through judicial assurances. Separate personality remains the rule, and control or ownership alone does not suffice; there must be a nexus between control, misuse of the corporate form, and frustration of enforcement. A forensic audit reconstructs share movements, pledges, sales, financing, approvals, disclosures, and fund flows, distinguishing legitimate enforcement of pre-existing security from coordinated asset dissipation.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
School affiliation services fall outside educational exemption without a direct nexus to admissions or examination conduct.
Consolidated show cause notices may combine financial years governed by Sections 73 and 74 where liabilities are segregated period-wise, each component independently meets limitation and notice requirements, the additional ingredients for fraud-based proceedings are satisfied, and no actual prejudice arises. School affiliation and affiliation-form processing charges are independent taxable supplies where they concern institutional eligibility and compliance, rather than directly and immediately relating to student admission or the conduct of examinations. A broad connection with education does not satisfy the educational-services exemption.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Fraudulent input tax credit requires proof of fictitious supplies, absent goods receipt, and fraud-linked self-assessment, not cancellation alone.
Input tax credit from allegedly non-existent suppliers depends on proof of genuine supply and actual receipt of goods or services, not merely invoices, accounting entries, or banking-channel payments. Section 155 places the burden of establishing ITC eligibility on the claimant. Section 74 requires more than ineligible credit: the wrongful availment must be linked to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax. Retrospective supplier-registration cancellation is relevant evidence but is not conclusive. A fraud-based notice must disclose facts showing fictitious suppliers, absence of supply, and a basis for inferring the recipient's knowledge or participation.
Case Laws Money Laundering
Show AI Summary
Prolonged pre-trial incarceration may justify conditional PMLA bail when delayed trials make continued detention constitutionally disproportionate.
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act remains the stringent ordinary bail threshold, requiring prosecutorial opportunity and, on opposition, reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to offend while on bail. Article 21 nevertheless requires a separate, fact-sensitive inquiry where prolonged pre-trial detention and an unrealistic trial timetable make custody disproportionate. Relevant factors include custody length, trial progress, remaining witnesses, secured documentary evidence, source of delay, predicate-case status, and risks of absconding or witness interference. Conditions such as passport surrender, attendance, non-contact directions, and residence disclosure may safeguard the trial.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Prospective operation of stamp-value taxation prevents retrospective application where property agreements and substantial payments predate the charging provision.
Section 56(2)(x)(b) applies to immovable property received for inadequate consideration only where its temporal and valuation conditions are satisfied. A stamp-value difference alone does not establish taxability. Where consideration was fixed and substantial payments or contractual performance occurred before the charging provision commenced, later conveyance or registration does not by itself attract the later charge. Agreement-date valuation is available only for covered transactions where consideration was fixed and paid, wholly or partly, through prescribed banking or electronic modes on or before the agreement date. The tax authority must identify the correct statutory basis and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
GST cash seizure limits require statutory relevance and restitutionary interest for unlawfully retained currency following searches.
GST seizure powers cannot be used to take cash as a general investigative measure or security for a possible tax demand. Currency is excluded from goods, and "things" is confined contextually to articles useful or relevant as evidence in GST proceedings. Valid seizure and retention require recorded statutory reasons, procedural compliance and observance of return timelines. Unauthorised retention engages property protections; later return does not cure the deprivation, and accrued interest is restitutionary rather than delayed-refund interest.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Salary expense genuineness requires proof of actual services, business purpose, and fair testing of adverse third-party statements.
Under Section 37(1), salary expenditure is deductible only where it is actually incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and is supported by proof of genuine employment, services rendered, business nexus, and payment. Bank transfers and accounting entries alone are not conclusive. Where a third-party statement is central to an allegation of non-genuine salary, the taxpayer should receive disclosure and a meaningful opportunity to rebut it, including cross-examination where appropriate. A retracted and uncorroborated statement is vulnerable as the sole basis for disallowance.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Discounted cash flow valuation remains taxpayer-selected under prescribed rules, while tax scrutiny must identify specific valuation-date defects.
The taxpayer may elect a prescribed DCF valuation for unquoted equity shares, and scrutiny of that method does not permit substitution with Net Asset Value merely because it produces a lower fair market value. The Assessing Officer may examine projections, discount rates, terminal assumptions, computations and source data, but rejection requires demonstrably wrong facts, material errors, a wholly erroneous basis or objectively unsupported assumptions. Subsequent financial performance cannot alone invalidate a bona fide DCF valuation; the relevant inquiry remains the reasonableness of valuation-date information.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Excess IGST on exports remains refundable when later correction triggers automated refund and reconciliation proves duplicate payment.
Refund of excess IGST paid on zero-rated exports may arise where turnover and tax are mistakenly entered under non-zero-rated supplies in FORM GSTR-3B while export invoices and shipping bills are correctly reported in FORM GSTR-1. If the exporter then pays the same IGST in the correct zero-rated field and the automated refund is credited against that later payment, the earlier payment remains a separately identifiable potential excess; its claim is not a repeat request for the same export-tax refund.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
GST registration revocation requires timely application, return compliance, payment of dues, and a reasoned statutory decision.
GST registration revocation after cancellation for return default is a conditional, time-bound process. An application under Section 30 and Rule 23 must ordinarily be filed within ninety days, subject to prescribed extension, and cannot be made until pending returns are filed and tax, interest, penalty and late fee are paid. Portal non-acceptance may permit online or physical submission where technically unavailable, but does not condone delay or ensure revocation. The competent authority must assess statutory eligibility, sufficient grounds and compliance while following notice and hearing requirements before rejection.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

TDS on Interest Paid by Co-operative Banks to Non-Member Co-operative Societies under Section 194A(3)(v)

30 October, 2026

Contents
Circulars
Acts
Plus +
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

This is a neutral professional article. The judgment is analysed in the context of its factual background, issues framed, and conclusions reached by the Court.

2026 (8) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. At a Glance

  • The obligation under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies to interest other than interest on securities when it is credited or paid, whichever occurs earlier, subject to the exclusions in Section 194A(3).
  • Section 194A(3)(v) contains two distinct limbs. The first concerns interest paid by a co-operative society, other than a co-operative bank, to its member. The second concerns interest paid by a co-operative society to any other co-operative society.
  • In 2026 (8) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, it was held that a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v). Accordingly, interest paid by a co-operative bank to a non-member depositor which is itself a co-operative society is not subject to TDS under Section 194A.
  • Paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015 expressly states that the inter co-operative society exemption continues to apply to a co-operative bank, including for interest on time deposits paid to a depositor that is a co-operative society.
  • The exclusion relating to member-depositors and the statutory regime applicable to inter co-operative society interest payments must not be conflated. The former was expressly restricted for co-operative banks; the latter was retained.
  • Where the Section 194A(3)(v) exemption applies, the payer is not a person required to deduct tax. Consequently, proceedings for assessee-in-default status and consequential interest under Section 201 cannot be sustained on that transaction.

2. Background & Context

The central question is whether a co-operative bank must deduct tax at source from interest credited or paid on deposits maintained by a co-operative society that is not a member of the bank. The issue requires close attention to the language of Section 194A(3)(v), particularly because that clause addresses two different relationships: payment to a member, and payment from one co-operative society to another.

The general rule is contained in Section 194A(1). A person, other than an individual or Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident income by way of interest other than interest on securities must deduct income-tax at the rates in force at the time of credit to the payee's account or payment, whichever is earlier. The Explanation deems a credit to an account described as an "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account", or by any other name, to be credit to the account of the payee.

The controversy arose because co-operative banks conduct banking business, and specific provisions concerning banking deposits, thresholds and time deposits coexist with the exemption in Section 194A(3)(v). The statutory task is therefore not to treat every exemption in Section 194A(3) as operating identically, but to give effect to the particular language applicable to the identity of the payer, the recipient and the deposit relationship.

The decision in 2026 (8) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT resolves this question, for the assessment period involved, by separating the two limbs of Section 194A(3)(v) and applying the specific administrative clarification in paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015.

3. Key Issues / Provisions

Section 2(19): meaning of co-operative society

Section 2(19) defines a "co-operative society" to mean "a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies." This definition supplies the statutory context for construing the expression "co-operative society" in Section 194A(3)(v).

Section 194A(3)(v): the two-limb exclusion

The operative exclusion in Section 194A(3)(v) is that Section 194A(1) shall not apply "to such income credited or paid by a co-operative society (other than a co-operative bank) to a member thereof or to such income credited or paid by a co-operative society to any other co-operative society." The accompanying Explanation states that "co-operative bank" shall have the meaning assigned in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

The first limb expressly excludes a co-operative bank where interest is paid to a member. The second limb, however, does not contain the words "other than a co-operative bank". Its language is directed to payments by "a co-operative society" to "any other co-operative society." That deliberate difference in drafting is the foundation of the distinction.

Section 194A(3)(viia)

Section 194A(3)(viia)(a) separately excludes interest on deposits with a primary agricultural credit society, primary credit society, co-operative land mortgage bank or co-operative land development bank. Section 194A(3)(viia)(b) addresses deposits, other than specified time deposits, with a co-operative society engaged in banking. These provisions operate in their own defined fields. They do not warrant reading into the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) an exclusion that the legislature did not enact.

Paragraphs 42.5 and 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015

Circular No. 19/2015 distinguishes between member interest and inter co-operative society interest. Paragraph 42.5 explains that, from the stated prospective date, the exemption for interest paid by a co-operative society to its members does not apply to time-deposit interest paid by a co-operative bank to its members. Paragraph 42.7 separately provides: "the existing exemption provided under section 194A(3)(v) of the Income-tax Act from deduction of tax from interest paid by a co-operative society to another co-operative society shall continue to apply to the co-operative bank." It follows that "a co-operative bank shall not be required to deduct tax from the payment of interest on time deposit to a depositor, being a co-operative society."

Section 201 consequences

Under Section 201(1), a person who is required to deduct tax but does not deduct or pay it is deemed to be an assessee in default. Section 201(1A) imposes simple interest at one per cent for every month or part of a month from the date tax was deductible until deduction, and at one and one-half per cent from deduction until actual payment. These consequences presuppose a subsisting statutory duty to deduct.

4. Detailed Analysis

The governing interpretation of Section 194A(3)(v)

In 2026 (8) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the court held that Section 194A(3)(v) must be read as two independent components. The first component, "paid by a co-operative society (other than a co-operative bank) to a member thereof", denies the member-payment exemption to a co-operative bank. The second, "paid by a co-operative society to any other co-operative society", extends to the inter co-operative society transaction without excluding a co-operative bank.

The court reasoned that a co-operative bank does not cease to possess the legal character of a co-operative society merely because it is licensed to undertake banking business. If the legislature intended to deny the second-limb exemption to co-operative banks, it could have replicated the explicit exclusion used in the first limb. It did not do so. Reading such an exclusion into the second limb would add words to a taxing provision and alter its plain scope.

The resulting rule is transaction-specific. A co-operative bank paying interest to its member is governed by the first limb and does not receive the member-payment exclusion. In contrast, where it pays interest to a depositor that is another co-operative society, including a non-member co-operative society, the second limb applies. The co-operative bank is treated as a co-operative society for that purpose, and Section 194A(1) is excluded.

Significance of Circular No. 19/2015

The court gave decisive relevance to paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015. Paragraph 42.5 was confined to the amendment concerning interest on time deposits paid by co-operative banks to their members. It could not be used to decide a case involving interest paid to non-member co-operative societies.

Paragraph 42.7 is expressed in direct and unqualified terms. It preserves the exemption for interest paid by one co-operative society to another and confirms its application to a co-operative bank. Thus, the circular accords with the textual distinction between the two limbs and reinforces that time-deposit interest does not lose the inter co-operative society exemption merely because the payer is a co-operative bank.

Relationship with Section 194A(3)(i) and Section 194A(3)(viia)

The revenue position considered in the ruling treated the threshold and time-deposit provisions applicable to co-operative banks as controlling over the exemption in Section 194A(3)(v). That approach was rejected in relation to payments to another co-operative society. The court held that the second limb of clause (v) is not placed on the same footing as the first limb concerning member deposits. The specific statutory carve-out for payments between co-operative societies remains available because the legislature retained it and the circular expressly confirms it.

The supplied statutory text also contains a separate proviso to Section 194A(3) which imposes a deduction obligation on a co-operative society referred to in clause (v) or clause (viia), where both prescribed conditions are fulfilled: its total sales, gross receipts or turnover exceed fifty crore rupees in the immediately preceding financial year, and the annual interest credited or paid exceeds one lakh rupees for a senior-citizen payee or fifty thousand rupees in any other case. The applicability and effect of this proviso were not determined in the ruling under discussion. Its operation must therefore be examined independently where it is material to the relevant transaction and period.

Section 80P is not a determinant of TDS liability

The court also rejected the attempt to decide the withholding obligation through Section 80P. Section 80P(2)(d) addresses a payee co-operative society's deduction in respect of interest or dividend income derived from investments with another co-operative society. Section 80P(4) limits the application of that section to co-operative banks, subject to stated exceptions. Those provisions operate at the assessment stage in computing the recipient's taxable income.

Section 194A operates at the payment or credit stage and determines the payer's withholding obligation. Eligibility or ineligibility of a recipient for an assessment-stage deduction under Section 80P cannot be used to create a TDS duty where Section 194A(3)(v) itself excludes the transaction from Section 194A(1).

Relevant judicial continuity

In 2019 (10) TMI 1640 - KERALA HIGH COURT, interest paid by a district co-operative bank to co-operative societies on fixed deposits was held not liable to TDS under Section 194A(3)(v). The conclusion followed the revenue's concession that the payment was from one co-operative society to another. The authority directly supports the inter co-operative society character of the exemption.

2019 (10) TMI 1639 - KERALA HIGH COURT reached the same result for interest paid by a district co-operative bank to a primary agricultural credit society. It treated the transaction as interest paid by one co-operative society to another, thereby taking it outside the TDS requirement. This authority is consistent with the later detailed analysis of the two limbs of Section 194A(3)(v).

2016 (1) TMI 370 - MADRAS HIGH COURT considered whether a meaningful distinction could be drawn between a co-operative bank and a co-operative society engaged in banking business. It found no substantive dichotomy in the connected statutory framework except where Section 194A itself expressly created one. Although that decision dealt with member-deposit issues for an earlier period, its reasoning supports the proposition that the character of a co-operative bank as a co-operative society is not extinguished for every purpose under Section 194A.

A different construction appears in 2015 (4) TMI 374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, which treated interest on time deposits with an urban co-operative bank as subject to TDS beyond the threshold considered there. That authority concerned the interaction of time-deposit rules and exemptions in a different setting. The supplied material does not indicate that it examined the distinct second limb of Section 194A(3)(v), paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015, or a payment to a non-member co-operative society. The later ruling therefore turns on the specific inter co-operative society statutory language and cannot be reduced to a general time-deposit rule.

Effect on Section 201 proceedings

Once the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) applies, no tax is deductible under Section 194A(1). The foundational requirement of Section 201(1), namely that the payer was "required to deduct" tax, is absent. In 2026 (8) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the court consequently held that the co-operative bank could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) or be subjected to interest under Section 201(1A) for the interest paid to non-member co-operative societies.

5. Practical Implications

Co-operative banks should classify interest payments by the legal status of the depositor rather than by deposit type alone. The first compliance question is whether the depositor is a co-operative society. The second is whether the payment falls within the inter co-operative society limb of Section 194A(3)(v). The depositor's membership or non-membership may be vital in establishing that the dispute concerns the second limb rather than the first, but the crucial statutory feature remains that the recipient is another co-operative society.

Documentation should establish the payer's status as a co-operative society carrying on banking business and the recipient's status as a co-operative society. Deposit records, registration materials, account-opening records and interest-credit schedules should consistently identify the recipient and the nature of the payment. The bank should also preserve a reasoned internal note identifying paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015 as the basis for non-deduction, where applicable.

TDS systems should not automatically apply the member time-deposit rule in paragraph 42.5 to deposits held by co-operative societies. Such an approach overlooks the express continuation of the inter co-operative society exemption in paragraph 42.7. At the same time, the separate proviso reproduced in Section 194A(3), where applicable, requires independent verification of its turnover and interest-amount conditions.

In pending or proposed Section 201 proceedings, the defence should focus first on the absence of a duty under Section 194A(1) by reason of Section 194A(3)(v). Arguments concerning the recipient's ultimate tax liability, its eligibility under Section 80P, or its assessment treatment are analytically distinct and do not answer the withholding question.

6. Key Takeaways

  • Section 194A(3)(v) draws a critical distinction between interest paid by a co-operative bank to its members and interest paid by a co-operative society to another co-operative society.
  • The words "other than a co-operative bank" qualify the member-payment limb; they do not appear in the inter co-operative society limb.
  • A co-operative bank retains its character as a co-operative society for the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v).
  • Paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015 expressly preserves the exemption for interest paid by a co-operative bank to a depositor that is a co-operative society, including interest on time deposits.
  • Section 80P concerns assessment-stage deductions and does not govern the payer's transaction-stage TDS obligation under Section 194A.
  • Where the exemption applies, there is no failure to deduct and therefore no basis for assessee-in-default consequences under Section 201(1) or interest under Section 201(1A).
  • The separate proviso to Section 194A(3), as reproduced in the statutory text, must be evaluated on its own terms whenever its turnover and interest thresholds are relevant.

 


Full Text:

2026 (8) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Topics

Acts Income Tax