← 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

Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, TDS-Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.722/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 43, Shankar Society Part-1 Tds Ward-1 V/S. Near Meerambica Road Ahmedabad – 380 014 Opp. Amikunj Bus Stand Naranpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aeipp 9274 R अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) By The Ito, Tds Ward 1, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], In Relation To A.Y. 2015–16. Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 194ISection 2(14)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

taxes by the deductees, heavy addition made may please be deleted. 7. The learned assessing officer erred in treating the assessee as 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) without demonstrating the satisfaction of the requirements of Explanation to section 191 and first proviso to section ... Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have erred in treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS under section 194IA of the Act, without appreciating the correct legal position and factual matrix

Florentine Estates of India Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 74(2), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No. 735/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Florentine Estates Of India Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 112-115, First Floor, Tolstoy House, Ward-74(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf1985C Assessee By : Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)-29, New Delhi’S In Case No. Cit(A), Delhi-29/11053/2015-16 Dated 09.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

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

assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges both the learned 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 2 Florentine Estates of India Ltd. Development Authority ... hearing as are the facts involved before us. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities respective findings treating the assessee as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms. 6. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/07/2025. (Avdhesh

Surya Global Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.344/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 218-19) Surya Global Hospitals (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer(Tds) Ltd, Kakinada Ward 1 Pan:Aapcs7094C Rajahmundry (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/03/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl./Jcit(A) Panaji Arising From The Order Passed U/S 201(1) Of The Act For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 20(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

given one more opportunity to explain its case and produce the relevant record to show that the assessee cannot be held as “assessee in default” u/s 201(1) of the Act. He has pointed out that it is a case of short deduction of TDS and payment made ... Surya Global Hospitals Pvt Ltd as per proviso to section 201(1) of the Act, the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default”. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite the 3 opportunities given by the learned CIT (A), the assessee failed