← All Phrases

“assessee in default”

TDS / TCSSection 201Section 2011,654 judgments

The decision most relied on for assessee in default is Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India (54 Taxmann.com 200), cited in 702 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on assessee in default

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.
373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court
199
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

Jagaran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 288 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

A deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source if the recipient has already paid the income tax directly. The onus is on the deductor to prove that the recipient has paid the tax.

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.

CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.
325 ITR 148 · 2010 · High Court
155
citing judgments

Discounts offered to distributors under a tightly controlled relationship constitute commission and are subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing assessee in default

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 197/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the entire demand of ‘TCS’ by holding that the Revenue authorities have wrongly treated the company as “assessee in default” under section 206C of the Act? d. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the provisions that

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 196/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the entire demand of ‘TCS’ by holding that the Revenue authorities have wrongly treated the company as “assessee in default” under section 206C of the Act? d. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the provisions that

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 195/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the entire demand of ‘TCS’ by holding that the Revenue authorities have wrongly treated the company as “assessee in default” under section 206C of the Act? d. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the provisions that

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 194/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the entire demand of ‘TCS’ by holding that the Revenue authorities have wrongly treated the company as “assessee in default” under section 206C of the Act? d. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the provisions that

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 193/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 197/Ran/2024 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2013-2014 To 2017-2018) Vs Jharkhand Acit, Ranchi State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, Nepal House Area, Ranchi Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 2578 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, All Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018, Respectively. 2. An Adjournment Has Been Sought On Behalf Of The Assessee By Shri Aloke Kumar Choudhuri, Gm(Finance) Of The Assessee Corporation Stating That Due To Unforeseen Circumstances, They Have Been Unable To Engage Alternative Representation & Prepare The Case For The Hearing Within The Scheduled Timeframe. The Reasons Given Being Unsatisfactory, The Adjournment Application Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Stands Rejected. 3. Shri Rajib Jain, Ld. Cit-Dr Has Also Sought Adjournment Stating That The Order Has Been Passed By Him As Cit(A) & His Stands Be Precluded From Defending The Said Order As He Has Given Relief To The Assessee & It 2

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: None (Adjournment Petition filed)
Section 206CSection 260

learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the entire demand of ‘TCS’ by holding that the Revenue authorities have wrongly treated the company as “assessee in default” under section 206C of the Act? d. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the provisions that

Mateshwari Bus Operation Private Limited, Ahemdabad vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2, Ahemdabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmateshwari Bus Operations Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Tds, Ward-2, U-7, Swastik House, Near Old Ahmedabad. High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Ahmm13678 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amit Mundhra, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Bona Fide Inter- Corporate Loan Of Rs.20,00,000/- Advanced By The Assessee To M/S Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. As "Deemed Dividend" Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & In Holding The Assessee To Be An Assessee In Default Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) For Not Deducting Tax At Source Under Section 194 Of The Act. The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Was A Commercial Loan, Fully Disclosed & Subsequently Repaid By The Recipient, The Assessee Was Not The Beneficial Owner Of Shares In The Recipient Company, No Benefit Accrued To Any Shareholder Individually & The Conditions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Satisfied Either In Letter Or In Spirit. The Impugned Order Is Therefore Bad In Law, Based On Presumptions & Liable To Be Quashed In Its Entirety.” Maheshwari Bus Operation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year 2015-16 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mundhra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 250

deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding the assessee to be an assessee in default under section 201(1)/201(1A) for not deducting tax at source under section 194 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that

Spahire Landcraft Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

ITA 3213/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3212/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3213/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Saphire Landcraft Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, G-3, Aditya Commercial Complex, Ward-22(3), Plot No. 7, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs4737B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 3212 & 3213/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Prayagraj’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1074091615(1) & 1073551112(1) Dated 21.02.2025 & 06.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

grievance raised in the instant twin appeals challenges both the learned Saphire Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external development charges payments made to M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”) which stand treated ... favour that such are “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms. 5. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3212 & 3213/Del/2025 are dismissed. A copy of this

Saphire Landcraft Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

ITA 3212/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3212/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3213/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Saphire Landcraft Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, G-3, Aditya Commercial Complex, Ward-22(3), Plot No. 7, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs4737B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 3212 & 3213/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Prayagraj’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1074091615(1) & 1073551112(1) Dated 21.02.2025 & 06.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

grievance raised in the instant twin appeals challenges both the learned Saphire Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external development charges payments made to M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”) which stand treated ... favour that such are “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms. 5. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3212 & 3213/Del/2025 are dismissed. A copy of this