← All Phrases

“assessee in default”

TDS / TCSSection 201Section 2011,654 judgments

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 454/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Nair, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 201(1)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer ("AO") holding the appellant to be an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source under section 192 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The CIT(A) erred ... Appellant and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have quashed the order of the AD holding the Appellant to be an assessee in default. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not quashing the order of the AG holding the Appellant to be an assessee in default for the reason that

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Nair, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 201(1)

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer ("AO") holding the appellant to be an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source under section 192 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The CIT(A) erred ... Appellant and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have quashed the order of the AD holding the Appellant to be an assessee in default. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not quashing the order of the AG holding the Appellant to be an assessee in default for the reason that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 250Section 46A

properties exceeded Rs.50 lakh and, therefore, the provisions of section 194-IA were applicable. Accordingly, the assessee was treated as an assessee in default and demand of Rs.1,69,34,640/- including interest was raised vide order dated 29.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee ... lands in question are held to be agricultural and outside the scope of section 194-IA, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and the interest charged u/s 201(1A) is also therefore not sustainable. We, therefore, find no infirmity

CONSCIENT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 73(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 6586/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALEM vs. TIRUCHENGODE MUNICIPALITY, TIRUCHENGODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3686/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3685 & 3686/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25 Income Tax Officer, V Tiruchengode Municipality, Tds Ward, Room No.205, 2Nd S No.1, Kasari Street, Municipal Floor, Old Building, Income Tax Office, Tiruchengode, Office, No.3, Gandhi Road, Namakkal – 637211, Salem – 636007. Tiruchengode. Pan: Aaalt1024H Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Ranchi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2023-24 & 2024-25 Both Dated 08.10.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These

Section 19Section 194Section 201(1)Section 250

TUFIDCO & M/s TNUIFSL to deduct the TDS on interest payments made is not acceptable Hence the assessee deductor was rightly treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and 201(14) 3. The Ld. AddI/JCIT (A), RANCHI erred in overlooking the fact that the liability to deduct

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALEM vs. TIRUCHENGODE MUNICIPALITY, TIRUCHENGODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3685/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3685 & 3686/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25 Income Tax Officer, V Tiruchengode Municipality, Tds Ward, Room No.205, 2Nd S No.1, Kasari Street, Municipal Floor, Old Building, Income Tax Office, Tiruchengode, Office, No.3, Gandhi Road, Namakkal – 637211, Salem – 636007. Tiruchengode. Pan: Aaalt1024H Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Ranchi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2023-24 & 2024-25 Both Dated 08.10.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These

Section 19Section 194Section 201(1)Section 250

TUFIDCO & M/s TNUIFSL to deduct the TDS on interest payments made is not acceptable Hence the assessee deductor was rightly treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and 201(14) 3. The Ld. AddI/JCIT (A), RANCHI erred in overlooking the fact that the liability to deduct

BASE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 73(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 194Section 194CSection 196Section 250Section 250HSection 3(3)(a)

principles of natural justice. 3. That the Learned Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that Appellant Company should not be treated as assessee in default within the meaning of Section 250 as the Appellant Company was not liable to deduct the tax at source from the payments ... source from this EDC payment which has to be made to HUDA. Hence, this clearly shows that Assessee should not be treated as Assessee in default within the meaning of Section 250Hence the same is unlawful and unsustainable under the law. 3.1 That without prejudice to the above, the learned

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT(OSD) TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5660/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

/201(1A) of the Act. Pursuant to these proceedings the impugned orders were passed on 22.04.2022 treating appellant as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments u/s 194I of the Act in AY: 2017-18 and u/s 194C ... 5660/Del/2024 M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18 to 2021-22) prejudice invoked provision of Section 194C of the Act to hold assessee in default but ultimately after taking into consideration the reply of the assessee held assessee to be in default for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194I

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5434/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

/201(1A) of the Act. Pursuant to these proceedings the impugned orders were passed on 22.04.2022 treating appellant as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments u/s 194I of the Act in AY: 2017-18 and u/s 194C ... 5660/Del/2024 M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18 to 2021-22) prejudice invoked provision of Section 194C of the Act to hold assessee in default but ultimately after taking into consideration the reply of the assessee held assessee to be in default for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194I

M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5433/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

/201(1A) of the Act. Pursuant to these proceedings the impugned orders were passed on 22.04.2022 treating appellant as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments u/s 194I of the Act in AY: 2017-18 and u/s 194C ... 5660/Del/2024 M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18 to 2021-22) prejudice invoked provision of Section 194C of the Act to hold assessee in default but ultimately after taking into consideration the reply of the assessee held assessee to be in default for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194I

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5432/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

/201(1A) of the Act. Pursuant to these proceedings the impugned orders were passed on 22.04.2022 treating appellant as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments u/s 194I of the Act in AY: 2017-18 and u/s 194C ... 5660/Del/2024 M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18 to 2021-22) prejudice invoked provision of Section 194C of the Act to hold assessee in default but ultimately after taking into consideration the reply of the assessee held assessee to be in default for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194I

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGOAN vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5431/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

/201(1A) of the Act. Pursuant to these proceedings the impugned orders were passed on 22.04.2022 treating appellant as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments u/s 194I of the Act in AY: 2017-18 and u/s 194C ... 5660/Del/2024 M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18 to 2021-22) prejudice invoked provision of Section 194C of the Act to hold assessee in default but ultimately after taking into consideration the reply of the assessee held assessee to be in default for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194I

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2011-12 Vijay Stone Product, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Bari Dala, Sonebhadra-231001 Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad Pan: Aagfv4724J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Lucknow Dated 29.10.2018 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed A Penalty Of Rs. 1 Lac Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 221 Of The Act Against The Total Levy Of Rs. 27,26,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 221(1) Of The It Act Imposing Huge Penalty & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) By Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Tax Liability On The Basis Of Assessment Order As Created Is Not Correct At All Therefore The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unwarranted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Is Totally Incorrect & Illegal & Hence The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Does Not Arise & Therefore So Maintained Penalty Is Liable To Be Deleted In All Fairness & In Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 153DSection 153D(1)(B)Section 220(2)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 276C(2)

Accordingly, he decided to impose a penalty of Rs. 27,26,200/- (being the average 10% of balance demand) by treating the assessee in default under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before ... raised vide notice dated 23.03.2013 and had, after careful consideration of all factors, come to a conclusion to treat the assessee as an assessee in default. However, she pointed out that it was also incumbent upon the AO to look into the quality of additions made during the assessment

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard to the alternate plea that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default on this ground, we notice that the ITR for AY 2024-25 filed by Shri PremalDayalalDoshi is submitted by the Id AR (page

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard to the alternate plea that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default on this ground, we notice that the ITR for AY 2024-25 filed by Shri PremalDayalalDoshi is submitted by the Id AR (page

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8285/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard to the alternate plea that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default on this ground, we notice that the ITR for AY 2024-25 filed by Shri PremalDayalalDoshi is submitted by the Id AR (page

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

that the FAA did not accept the submissions of the assessee. With regard to the alternate plea that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default on this ground, we notice that the ITR for AY 2024-25 filed by Shri PremalDayalalDoshi is submitted by the Id AR (page

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

Section 270Section 270A

rendered himself for penalty M/s. AVM Productions :: 8 :: u/s.270A of the Act.” Accordingly, he held assessee to be an assessee in default u/s.270A of the Act for misreporting its income. We don’t countenance the action of the AO levying penalty for the simple reason that there was total failure ... part of AO to apply his mind to hold assessee to be an assessee in default u/s.270A of the Act for misreporting its income. Merely reproducing sub-section (1) to (3) of section 270A of the Act, which is relating to underreporting income, the AO is noted to have imposed

CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAGAR PALIKA,PITHAMPUR vs. ITO, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 494/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Chief Municipal Officer, Acit (Tds) Nagar Palika, Opposite Indore बनाम/ Bajaj Tempo, Sector No.1 Vs. Pithampur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Tan: Bplc01981A Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 251

opportunity of being heard 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) for short deduction of TDS u/s 194J for an amount ... facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) for short deduction of TDS u/s/194J for an amount of Rs. 4,36,013 and thereby levying an interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, SALEM, SALEM vs. COMMISSIONER ATTUR MUNICIPALITY, SALEM

ITA 3737/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3736 & 3737/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25

For Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

paid to M/s TUFIDCO without deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194A of the Act. The AO held that the assessee has defaulted in complying with provisions of section 194A of the Act and accordingly treated the assessee as assessee in default

Showing 1–20 of 1,654 · Page 1 of 83

...