← All Phrases

“deemed assessee in default”

TDS / TCSSection 201Section 2018 judgments

The decision most relied on for deemed assessee in default is CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. (340 ITR 333), cited in 161 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deemed assessee in default

CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
340 ITR 333 · 2012 · High Court
161
citing judgments

A deductor's bonafide belief or reliance on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) can influence whether they are deemed an 'assessee in default' under Section 195 for failing to deduct tax at source on payments to non-residents. The decision clarifies the due diligence required when interpreting tax treaties and TRCs for TDS compliance.

Bank Vs. ACIT (2005) 142 Taxman 98 (Kerala) (v) CIT(TDS) v. Director, DPS
115 ITD 411 · ITAT
81
citing judgments

The case is an authority regarding the conditions under which an assessee can be held liable, and orders confirmed, under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS). It clarifies the circumstances for deeming an assessee to be in default for non-deduction or non-payment of TDS.

433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS)
28 Taxmann.com 25 · 2012 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

If the deductee has already paid the tax due, the deductor cannot be deemed to be in default under section 201(1) or liable for interest under section 201(1A). The Revenue must establish that the tax is not recoverable from the deductee before deeming the deductor as an assessee in default.

DCIT (TDS) (2009) 319 ITR 409 (Karl), TRO v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
384 ITR 328 · 2016 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A deductor is not deemed to be an assessee in default under Section 201 if the deductee has paid the taxes due on the income, even if the deductor had not previously satisfied the AO. The liability is limited to interest under Section 201(1A).

Judgments citing deemed assessee in default

Rajsila Stone Crusher, Sidhi vs. Incometax Officer Ward 2, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajsila Stone Crusher V. Income Tax Officer Prop Shri Pushpraj Singh, 15 Ward-2 Shastri Nagar, Gopadbanas, Income Tax Office, Kothi Distt-Sidhi-486661. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aalfr4762R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 4O

Delhi was not justified in appreciating that as per 24 proviso of Section 4Oa(ia) of the Act the appellant should not be deemed assessee in default and confirming the addition of Rs. 7,24,937/on the ground that it was inserted w.e.f 01.04.2013 by ignoring all the Judgments relied

M/S Barmer Ligmite Mining Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 157/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

M/S Barmer Ligmite Mining Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No.2 & 3, 7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 153/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Power Ltd. from appellant Co. having taken for computing its income. Considering the same, the A.O has not treated the appellant company as 'deemed assessee in default resulting in non levy of demand u/s. 201(1) for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. However

deemed assessee in default — 8 case laws | BharatTax