We are exempt from deducting tax on these deposits. Does that also mean we need not give the information?
No. The Court held that an exemption from deduction under s.194A(3)(viia) does not carry with it any exemption from furnishing information under s.133(6). It rejected the jurisdictional challenge because the notice had been issued after obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner, and dismissed the petition.
Decided by the High Court (Mohammed Nias C.P. J) on 2025-03-12, reported as WP(C) No. 24497 of 2018. It bears on section 133(6), section 194A(3)(viia), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and TDS Defaults matters.
It is a recent restatement, and it disposes of the answer many societies and small businesses give - that because the underlying obligation does not apply to them, the information obligation does not either. It also confirms that the courts still treat the proviso's approval as the operative check, and record whether it was obtained.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A service co-operative bank was served with a notice under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (TDS). It contended that the notice was without jurisdiction and that, being entitled to the exemption in s.194A(3)(viia) in respect of interest paid, it was not obliged to furnish the information sought. A penalty followed the non-compliance.
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the information had been called for under s.133(6) after getting necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kochi, and rejected the contention of want of jurisdiction (para 13). It held that an entitlement to exemption under s.194A(3)(viia) does not exempt a society from furnishing information under s.133(6), and that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The distinction between 'inquiry' and 'enquiry' is not this Bench's own construction and is not at para 11: para 11 records the petitioner's first contention, that the first respondent is neither the Assessing Officer nor the prescribed authority under s.133(6) so that the notice is without jurisdiction. The distinction appears at para 12, where the Court reproduces the Supreme Court's construction in Kathiroor - and the petitioner was deploying it to argue that there was no enquiry at all, which is the opposite of the use the Revenue makes of it.
The Court began from the 1995 amendment, which widened s.133(6) so that information may be called for in aid of an enquiry and not only a pending proceeding, subject to the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner (para 12). The distinction it sets out there between enquiring - the seeking of information - and an enquiry, the gathering of it, is the Supreme Court's in Kathiroor, reproduced by this Court, not a construction this Bench worked out; on the petitioner's use of it, the argument was that no enquiry existed at all. The Court took the provision to apply to any 'person', which takes in banking entities and co-operative societies, and to enable the authorities to verify compliance with statutory obligations. An exemption from a substantive obligation such as deduction under s.194A is therefore beside the point: the information power exists precisely so that entitlement to such an exemption can be tested. Approval having been obtained and recorded on the face of the notice, the jurisdictional objection failed (para 13).
the notice was issued after getting necessary approval from the higher authorities
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Court held that an exemption from deduction under s.194A(3)(viia) does not carry with it any exemption from furnishing information under s.133(6). It rejected the jurisdictional challenge because the notice had been issued after obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner, and dismissed the petition. This was decided by the High Court (Mohammed Nias C.P. J) and bears on section 133(6), section 194A(3)(viia), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as WP(C) No. 24497 of 2018. It is a recent restatement, and it disposes of the answer many societies and small businesses give - that because the underlying obligation does not apply to them, the information obligation does not either. It also confirms that the courts still treat the proviso's approval as the operative check, and record whether it was obtained. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Separate the two questions in your reply: whether you owed tax or TDS, and whether you owe the information. They are answered differently.
A service co-operative bank was served with a notice under s.133(6) by the Income-tax Officer (TDS). It contended that the notice was without jurisdiction and that, being entitled to the exemption in s.194A(3)(viia) in respect of interest paid, it was not obliged to furnish the information sought. A penalty followed the non-compliance. The matter was decided on 2025-03-12 by the High Court (Mohammed Nias C.P. J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the information had been called for under s.133(6) after getting necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kochi, and rejected the contention of want of jurisdiction (para 13). It held that an entitlement to exemption under s.194A(3)(viia) does not exempt a society from furnishing information under s.133(6), and that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The distinction between 'inquiry' and 'enquiry' is not this Bench's own construction and is not at para 11: para 11 records the petitioner's first contention, that the first respondent is neither the Assessing Officer nor the prescribed authority under s.133(6) so that the notice is without jurisdiction. The distinction appears at para 12, where the Court reproduces the Supreme Court's construction in Kathiroor - and the petitioner was deploying it to argue that there was no enquiry at all, which is the opposite of the use the Revenue makes of it.
The Court began from the 1995 amendment, which widened s.133(6) so that information may be called for in aid of an enquiry and not only a pending proceeding, subject to the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner (para 12). The distinction it sets out there between enquiring - the seeking of information - and an enquiry, the gathering of it, is the Supreme Court's in Kathiroor, reproduced by this Court, not a construction this Bench worked out; on the petitioner's use of it, the argument was that no enquiry existed at all. The Court took the provision to apply to any 'person', which takes in banking entities and co-operative societies, and to enable the authorities to verify compliance with statutory obligations. An exemption from a substantive obligation such as deduction under s.194A is therefore beside the point: the information power exists precisely so that entitlement to such an exemption can be tested. Approval having been obtained and recorded on the face of the notice, the jurisdictional objection failed (para 13). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the notice was issued after getting necessary approval from the higher authorities" The decision followed or applied Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v CIT (CIB), MANU/SC/1172/2013 - relied on; Karnataka Bank Ltd v Secretary, Government of India - relied on; M.V. Rajendran v Income Tax Officer - relied on.
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-03-12 and is reported as WP(C) No. 24497 of 2018. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 133(6), section 194A(3)(viia), section 133, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the information had been called for under s.133(6) after getting necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kochi, and rejected the contention of want of jurisdiction (para 13). It held that an entitlement to exemption under s.194A(3)(viia) does not exempt a society from furnishing information under s.133(6), and that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The distinction between 'inquiry' and 'enquiry' is not this Bench's own construction and is not at para 11: para 11 records the petitioner's first contention, that the first respondent is neither the Assessing Officer nor the prescribed authority under s.133(6) so that the notice is without jurisdiction. The distinction appears at para 12, where the Court reproduces the Supreme Court's construction in Kathiroor - and the petitioner was deploying it to argue that there was no enquiry at all, which is the opposite of the use the Revenue makes of it. It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and TDS Defaults matters, on section 133(6), section 194A(3)(viia), section 133 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Mohammed Nias C.P. J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where you say the notice is without jurisdiction, ask expressly whether approval under the proviso was obtained - the Court's answer here turned on the approval being on record. Furnish the information and take the substantive exemption on its own merits at the assessment or s.201 stage. Expect the word 'enquiry' to be read as wider than 'proceeding'; do not argue from the absence of a proceeding.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this judgment was located; it was decided on 12 March 2025 and no later treatment would be expected yet. It applies the Supreme Court's construction in Kathiroor and the Karnataka Bank line, which have not been disturbed. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment cites Kathiroor by its MANU reference, MANU/SC/1172/2013, which is how its date of 2013 is confirmed here; the Supreme Court judgment itself could not be opened in a verifiable full text and nothing is stated from it except as this judgment records. The passage quoted from Kathiroor at para 12 of this judgment on the meanings of 'to enquire' and 'enquiry' is short and is reproduced only as this Court reproduced it. M.V. Rajendran v ITO is recorded as this Bench identified it and was not separately opened. A check against the document corrected the inquiry/enquiry limb of the held: it had been pinned to para 11 and attributed to this Bench, whereas para 11 is the petitioner's first contention on jurisdiction and the distinction is at para 12, stated there as the Supreme Court's in Kathiroor and argued by the petitioner for the opposite conclusion. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the information had been called for under s.133(6) after getting necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kochi, and rejected the contention of want of jurisdiction (para 13). It held that an entitlement to exemption under s.194A(3)(viia) does not exempt a society from furnishing information under s.133(6), and that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The distinction between 'inquiry' and 'enquiry' is not this Bench's own construction and is not at para 11: para 11 records the petitioner's first contention, that the first respondent is neither the Assessing Officer nor the prescribed authority under s.133(6) so that the notice is without jurisdiction. The distinction appears at para 12, where the Court reproduces the Supreme Court's construction in Kathiroor - and the petitioner was deploying it to argue that there was no enquiry at all, which is the opposite of the use the Revenue makes of it.
TaxSphere, “Chennithala Thripperumthura Service Co-op Bank Ltd v ITO (TDS)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/chennithala-service-co-op-bank-v-ito-tds-133-6-enquiry-not-proceeding/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We are a co-operative bank. The TDS officer says we should have deducted tax under s.194A on fixed deposit interest paid to co-operative housing societies that are not our members, and has treated us as an assessee in default. Is he right?
The department has raised s.201 demands on our co-operative bank for not deducting tax on time deposit interest paid to members in years before June 2015. Does the Finance Act 2015 amendment to s.194A(3)(v) apply to those years?
Our co-operative society pays interest to members, to other co-operative societies and to outsiders. Which of these payments carry a TDS obligation under s.194A?
The bank has a s.133(6) notice asking for customer loan-repayment details and there is no assessment pending on anyone. Can the officer do that?
