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
    TOLA, Section 149 and the Surviving-Time Test for Reassessment Proceedings
    Case Laws Customs
    Provisional Release of Unseized Imported Food Consignments under the Customs Act, 1962
    Case Laws Customs
    Recovery of Unpaid Anti-Dumping Duty After Self-Assessment Under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962
    Project-Wise Anti-Profiteering Methodology in Real Estate under Section 171 of the Central Goods and...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retirement Leave Encashment Exemption under Section 10(10AA)(ii) and Retrospective Application of No...
    Transit-State Jurisdiction under GST: Limits on Detention and Penalty in External Inter-State Suppli...
    Post-Facto Shareholder Ratification of Diversion of Preferential Issue Proceeds under the PFUTP Regu...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 195 Withholding on Payments to Non-Residents: Royalty, Fees for Technical Services and Busin...
    Penalty: Scope of "Any Person" under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
    Recovery of Corporate Debtor Premises and Proof of Tenancy, Lease or Licence Rights under the Insolv...
    Service of GST Notices through the Common Portal: Statutory Validity and Practical Accessibility
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TNMM Comparability: Operating Items, Search Matrix and Functional Analysis under Rule 10B
    Case Laws Customs
    Validity of Gold Seizure under Section 110 and the Conditional Reverse Burden under Section 123 of t...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deduction under Section 80GGC: Genuineness of Political Contributions and Evidentiary Burden
    Post-Death Determination of GST Liability and Estate-Limited Recovery from Legal Heirs
    Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A of FEMA and the Requirement of Recorded Reasons to Bel...
    Case Laws Companies Law
    Oppression and Mismanagement Proceedings under Sections 241 and 242: Corporate Authority During Pend...
    Case Laws Benami Property
    Benami Claims in Self-Acquired Property: Rejection of Plaint and the Limits of the Fiduciary-Capacit...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reopening of Assessment under Sections 147 and 148: Reason to Believe, Tangible Material and Change ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Penalty under Section 270A on Disallowance of Political Donation Deduction under Section 80GGC
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Reassessment limitation under TOLA requires final notices to issue within surviving time and satisfy statutory safeguards.
Reassessment limitation under TOLA is a jurisdictional restraint. Transitional notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 are treated as Section 148A(b) show-cause notices, but only the surviving time remaining until 30 June 2021 is available for completing the reassessment process. Periods for supply of material and the assessee's response are excluded, but the Section 148A(d) decision, statutory approval and final Section 148 notice must issue within the remaining period. For Assessment Year 2015-16, post-1 April 2021 notices are treated as time-barred.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Unseized food consignments cannot face indefinite detention without lawful seizure, valid sampling, and prompt assessment.
Provisional release of an unseized imported food consignment is not mechanically governed by Section 110A, which applies to goods seized under Section 110. Customs may examine, test, verify and reassess imports, but indefinite retention without a seizure memorandum or disclosed reasons connecting the goods with confiscation is not justified. Food sampling should follow the specialised food-safety process through an authorised officer. A valid food-safety report may support conditional clearance, while classification, duty liability, confiscation and adjudication remain open. Revenue may be protected through proportionate security.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Anti-dumping duty recovery permits post-clearance demands and consequential import IGST where self-assessment omitted an applicable levy.
Unpaid anti-dumping duty omitted during self-assessment may be pursued through the customs recovery procedure without prior appellate modification of the self-assessment. The recovery framework applies to anti-dumping duty through statutory incorporation of provisions concerning assessment, non-levy, short-levy, interest and recovery. Where anti-dumping duty is chargeable, it forms part of the aggregate value used to compute IGST on imports, potentially creating a consequential IGST short-payment. Recovery requires accurate assessment of notification coverage, product, origin, rate, valuation, limitation and procedural safeguards.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Project-wise anti-profiteering requires actual input tax credit measurement and area-based allocation of benefits to real-estate purchasers.
Real-estate anti-profiteering under Section 171 requires project-level identification of additional input tax credit and allocation of the saving across total project area on a per-square-foot basis. Purchase value may quantify credit attributable to project expenditure, but turnover or collections cannot serve as the allocation basis. The comparison must use pre-GST credit actually availed rather than merely available credit. GST collected on consideration inflated by an undistributed benefit forms part of the amount not passed on and remains distinct from statutory interest.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Retirement leave encashment exemption applies under the enhanced notified ceiling while preserving non-government employee classification and statutory conditions.
Section 10(10AA)(ii) governs retirement leave-encashment exemption for non-Government employees, subject to the ten-month earned-leave measure, average-salary computation, and the notified monetary ceiling. Notification No. 31/2023 specifies an enhanced ceiling of Rs. 25,00,000, is deemed effective from 1 April 2023, and certifies that retrospective effect causes no adverse effect. The enhanced ceiling is treated as a remedial rationalisation of an existing exemption and may govern pending earlier-period matters, while preserving the distinction between Government and non-Government employees.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Transit GST jurisdiction limits detention penalties for documented inter-State supplies lacking a local taxable nexus.
Transit-State jurisdiction under GST permits interception, document production, e-way bill verification and authorised physical inspection of goods moving through an intermediate State. It does not, in a pure transit movement, support detention-related penalty for an external inter-State supply where origin and destination lie outside the intercepting State, no tax is payable there, and there is no evidence of diversion, local supply, fictitious or mismatched documents, or mismatch of goods. Cross-empowerment is administrative and does not create an independent territorial taxable nexus.
Case Laws SEBI
Show AI Summary
Shareholder ratification cannot cure preferential-issue fund diversion when disclosed objectives are abandoned, triggering securities-market fraud and disclosure concerns.
Post-facto shareholder approval cannot retrospectively validate diversion of preferential-issue proceeds contrary to issue-specific objects disclosed to shareholders and the market. A special resolution authorises the issue but does not permit unrestricted use of proceeds. Periodic deviation reporting, audit-committee review and utilisation disclosures promote transparency; they do not enable diversion followed by later regularisation. Immediate diversion, inadequate commercial justification and missing documentation may indicate that disclosed objects were not genuinely intended to be performed. Later amendment of corporate objects or shareholder ratification cannot cure a completed securities-market disclosure breach.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Cross-border software payments require copyright-right, technical-service, and permanent-establishment analysis before withholding obligations are determined under applicable treaties.
Section 195 requires withholding only from a remittance to a non-resident that includes income chargeable in India. For software, royalty depends on transfer of copyright rights, not merely the right to install, access, use, or distribute a copyrighted article under restrictive terms. Where a DTAA is more beneficial, its royalty and FTS definitions control; treaty FTS may require technology to be made available. Amounts that are neither royalty nor FTS require consideration as business profits, ordinarily taxable only where profits are attributable to a permanent establishment. Composite payments require component-wise allocation and analysis.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Personal GST penalty requires proof that the beneficiary retained benefit and directed a covered invoice or credit transaction.
Section 122(1A) may impose personal GST penalty on a registered or unregistered person only for a covered invoice or input tax credit transaction. Liability requires cumulative proof that the individual retained an identifiable personal benefit and that the transaction was conducted at that person's instance. Directorship, employment, registration, signature authority, or association with the taxable entity neither independently establishes nor excludes liability. Proceedings require transaction-specific and person-specific allegations and findings. The provision operates prospectively for underlying acts or transactions occurring on or after 01.01.2021.
Case Laws IBC
Show AI Summary
Proof of tenancy rights governs insolvency recovery of corporate-debtor premises from occupants lacking enforceable possessory interests.
Where premises form part of the corporate debtor's assets, Sections 18 and 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 require the resolution professional to take custody, control, preservation and protection measures. An occupant resisting recovery must prove a subsisting tenancy, leasehold interest or enforceable licence through reliable evidence of the parties' intended relationship and its essential terms. Permission to stock goods or conduct limited business activity, prolonged occupation, and business or utility records do not independently create rights in the premises. Section 60(5)(c) supports insolvency jurisdiction over asset-recovery measures connected with the insolvency estate.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
GST portal service requires statutory validity and practical accessibility before ex parte adjudication can fairly proceed.
GST portal service is a statutory method under Section 169, but its use in an ex parte demand proceeding depends on effective accessibility and a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard. Rule 142 requires electronic DRC-01 and DRC-07 summaries to operate alongside the underlying show-cause notice and reasoned order. Portal placement, complete communication, e-mail transmission, technical reliability and proof of actual access may determine whether service is effective, whether waiver applies, and whether appellate limitation begins.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
TNMM comparability requires consistent operating-cost treatment and FAR-based selection, while search matrices cannot replace evidence-led functional analysis.
TNMM requires consistent computation of operating profit and operating cost for the tested party and comparables. A provision for doubtful debts connected with sales and trade receivables may be an operating expense, as may routine business levies; income-tax on profits remains excluded. A search matrix is a disciplined evidentiary tool, not a statutory bar to an out-of-matrix comparable. Inclusion requires proof of functional fit, filter satisfaction and reasons for its absence, while rejection cannot rest solely on matrix absence. FAR analysis, segmental reliability and material scale differences govern comparability.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Reasonable belief in gold seizure requires recorded objective grounds before the reverse burden for smuggling can arise.
Gold seizure under Section 110 requires the proper officer to hold, before seizure, objectively supportable reasons to believe that goods are liable to confiscation. For gold, Section 123 shifts the burden of disproving smuggling only after a lawful seizure made in reasonable belief that the gold is smuggled. A general panchnama recital, foreign markings, high purity, or an uncorroborated retracted statement cannot alone establish that foundation. Reasons must exist contemporaneously and cannot be supplied retrospectively through later investigation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Political contribution deductions require proof that payments are genuine, not merely bank transfers, receipts, and recipient registration.
Registration of the recipient political party, non-cash remittance, banking records and donation receipts are necessary evidentiary facts for a political-contribution deduction, but do not conclusively prove a genuine contribution. Where credible material indicates an accommodation-entry arrangement involving return of funds through intermediaries, the claimant must substantiate the transaction and address taxpayer-specific circumstances. General allegations about a recipient cannot alone displace a claim without a sufficient nexus to the taxpayer's own payment. Penalty initiation requires separate determination of under-reporting or misreporting and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Estate-limited GST recovery permits post-death assessment of legal representatives while protecting heirs' independent assets after business discontinuance.
Section 93 permits post-death GST determination against a legal representative where a liable person dies. If the business is discontinued, tax, interest and penalty may be recovered only from the deceased's inherited estate and only within its capacity; the heir's independent assets remain outside that limit. Proceedings may be initiated without a pre-death notice, but must be addressed to the legal representative in that capacity, follow the applicable adjudication process, and provide hearing and a reasoned order.
Case Laws FEMA
Show AI Summary
Recorded reasons to believe govern foreign-asset seizure; non-confirmation requires appellate resolution before contradictory adjudication proceeds.
Section 37A permits seizure of equivalent domestic assets only where the authorised officer records written reasons to believe that foreign assets are held in contravention of FEMA. The competent authority must examine the material after hearing both sides and either confirm or set aside seizure. A reasoned non-confirmation based on an absent statutory threshold is substantive on seizure, though it does not finally decide the underlying contravention. Pending appeal, the adjudicating authority cannot displace that finding or adopt a contrary premise; Section 37A(4) applies only to confirmed seizure.
Case Laws Companies Law
Show AI Summary
Unstayed tribunal dismissal leaves former directors without corporate authority while banks follow valid company instructions amid management disputes.
Where an oppression and mismanagement petition has been dismissed, a pending appeal without an appellate stay does not itself restore a former director's authority or suspend the dismissal's operative effect. Sections 241 and 242 require statutory prejudice and prescribed Tribunal findings; procedural irregularities in director removal may be relevant but do not alone establish oppression. Banks should ordinarily follow formally authorised company instructions rather than decide unresolved management disputes, unless a binding judicial or statutory restraint applies.
Case Laws Benami Property
Show AI Summary
Benami property claims cannot be recast through wills or employment-based trust when pleadings assert beneficial ownership.
Benami-property claims based on a claimant's payment for property titled in another person's name may fall within the statutory definition when the property is alleged to be held for that claimant's benefit. A Will, succession claim, or other later instrument does not provide an independent basis of title where the pleaded foundation is restoration of beneficial ownership. The statutory scheme prohibits benami arrangements, bars enforcement of claimed beneficial ownership, and treats prohibited re-transfers as invalid; self-acquired title in the named holder's name does not displace the pleaded funding arrangement.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reason to believe in reassessment requires tangible material, a live nexus, and recorded reasons; review of examined issues is barred.
Income-tax reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 is permissible only where recorded reasons, assessed at the time of notice, disclose a bona fide reason to believe that chargeable income escaped assessment. Final proof is unnecessary at that stage, but relevant tangible material must have a rational, live link to escapement. Reopening cannot be used to review an issue consciously examined and decided in the original scrutiny; nor can later or extraneous material supplement the recorded reasons. The taxpayer may seek the reasons, file focused objections, and receive a speaking order before reassessment continues.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Political-donation deduction disallowance does not itself establish misreporting; enhanced penalty requires proof of a specific statutory default.
Disallowance of a political-contribution deduction under Section 80GGC and imposition of penalty under Section 270A are separate statutory inquiries. An adverse finding on genuineness or eligibility may raise assessed or reassessed income, but cannot alone establish misreporting. Enhanced penalty requires proof that the taxpayer's conduct falls within a specific Section 270A(9) category, supported by a precise notice and reasoned factual findings.

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