← 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

Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated

ITA 1465/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1465/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad – 380 014 42, Tirth Bhumi Co-Op. Society Near Dhara Soap Factory Nikol Gam Road, Nikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpd 2745 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)"], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. The Appeal Arises From The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

transferee and not with reference to any individual share. Since no tax was deducted at source, the AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act for failure to deduct tax. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee ... Rs.50 lakhs. 4. 1. In addition to the above, the assessee further submitted that the AO had erred in treating her as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) of the Act without satisfying the conditions laid down in the Explanation to section