@hender @RAMESH BABU N
With all due respect, let me make this absolutely clear — this post isn’t about misunderstanding how FD interest or TDS works. I know the processes, and I’ve dealt with TDS-related matters long enough to know that if something is marked as TDS, it’s claimable and not worth creating a fuss over. So, if the deduction was clearly shown as TDS, I wouldn’t have bothered creating this thread at all.
The issue here is something else — something that’s being overlooked in the name of “clearly defined rules.” In my case, the FD was spread across three financial years, and the total interest never crossed the exemption limit. That means TDS shouldn’t have been deducted at all,
Even putting that aside for a moment, the deduction wasn’t even marked as TDS.
FYI, This FD belongs to my brother, who has no other source of income — and even including this FD, his interest income doesn’t cross the basic exemption limit. As per the Income Tax Act, TDS is not supposed to be deducted in such cases, even if Form 15G isn’t submitted, because there's no taxable income to begin with.
So if it wasn’t TDS, then what was it? Why was a deduction made without any clear documentation? That’s the real problem.
And just to add, this wasn’t a one-off glitch. The same thing happened again today with another FD. Same silent deduction, no explanation, no visibility. The only difference is that the amount involved was much smaller.
Also, the deduction amount doesn’t match any logical rate — not 10%, not 20%, not even a rounded-off value. So there’s no way to even reverse engineer what logic was used.
I’m not here to argue over banking rules — I’m pointing out a clear lapse in transparency.
When banks start silently deducting money and can’t explain it, that’s a red flag, whether someone’s from a finance background or not.
This post is to raise awareness for others to double-check their FD closures because what’s happening here isn’t how a “clearly defined” process is supposed to look.
With all due respect, let me make this absolutely clear — this post isn’t about misunderstanding how FD interest or TDS works. I know the processes, and I’ve dealt with TDS-related matters long enough to know that if something is marked as TDS, it’s claimable and not worth creating a fuss over. So, if the deduction was clearly shown as TDS, I wouldn’t have bothered creating this thread at all.
The issue here is something else — something that’s being overlooked in the name of “clearly defined rules.” In my case, the FD was spread across three financial years, and the total interest never crossed the exemption limit. That means TDS shouldn’t have been deducted at all,
Even putting that aside for a moment, the deduction wasn’t even marked as TDS.
- No mention in the FD closure statement
- No breakup shown
- And when I asked the bank about it, they themselves confirmed no TDS was deducted
FYI, This FD belongs to my brother, who has no other source of income — and even including this FD, his interest income doesn’t cross the basic exemption limit. As per the Income Tax Act, TDS is not supposed to be deducted in such cases, even if Form 15G isn’t submitted, because there's no taxable income to begin with.
So if it wasn’t TDS, then what was it? Why was a deduction made without any clear documentation? That’s the real problem.
And just to add, this wasn’t a one-off glitch. The same thing happened again today with another FD. Same silent deduction, no explanation, no visibility. The only difference is that the amount involved was much smaller.
Also, the deduction amount doesn’t match any logical rate — not 10%, not 20%, not even a rounded-off value. So there’s no way to even reverse engineer what logic was used.
I’m not here to argue over banking rules — I’m pointing out a clear lapse in transparency.
When banks start silently deducting money and can’t explain it, that’s a red flag, whether someone’s from a finance background or not.
This post is to raise awareness for others to double-check their FD closures because what’s happening here isn’t how a “clearly defined” process is supposed to look.
