← 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

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1375/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

framed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act for all the assessment years by the ld AO treating the assessee as „assessee in default‟ on the ground that the remittances made by the assessee to various subsidiary companies in different countries would be liable for deduction ... India. Since the said remittances were made without deduction of tax at source by the assessee, the AO treated the assessee as „assessee in default‟ and hence tax was sought to be collected from the assessee u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequentially interest

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1374/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

framed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act for all the assessment years by the ld AO treating the assessee as „assessee in default‟ on the ground that the remittances made by the assessee to various subsidiary companies in different countries would be liable for deduction ... India. Since the said remittances were made without deduction of tax at source by the assessee, the AO treated the assessee as „assessee in default‟ and hence tax was sought to be collected from the assessee u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequentially interest

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1373/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

framed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act for all the assessment years by the ld AO treating the assessee as „assessee in default‟ on the ground that the remittances made by the assessee to various subsidiary companies in different countries would be liable for deduction ... India. Since the said remittances were made without deduction of tax at source by the assessee, the AO treated the assessee as „assessee in default‟ and hence tax was sought to be collected from the assessee u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequentially interest

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1372/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

framed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act for all the assessment years by the ld AO treating the assessee as „assessee in default‟ on the ground that the remittances made by the assessee to various subsidiary companies in different countries would be liable for deduction ... India. Since the said remittances were made without deduction of tax at source by the assessee, the AO treated the assessee as „assessee in default‟ and hence tax was sought to be collected from the assessee u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequentially interest

Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 862/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usita Nos. 860/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vs. Ito M/S. Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ward – 2(2)(3) Hapur, Up-245 101 Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaaln 1136 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 154Section 271C

light of submission made on behalf of the assessee, we are of the considered view that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default per se in the ITA No.860, 861 & 862/Del/2023 Nagar Palika Parishad vs. ITO A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 present circumstances and there exists reasonable cause giving

Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 861/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usita Nos. 860/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vs. Ito M/S. Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ward – 2(2)(3) Hapur, Up-245 101 Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaaln 1136 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 154Section 271C

light of submission made on behalf of the assessee, we are of the considered view that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default per se in the ITA No.860, 861 & 862/Del/2023 Nagar Palika Parishad vs. ITO A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 present circumstances and there exists reasonable cause giving

Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 860/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usita Nos. 860/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vs. Ito M/S. Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ward – 2(2)(3) Hapur, Up-245 101 Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaaln 1136 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 154Section 271C

light of submission made on behalf of the assessee, we are of the considered view that assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default per se in the ITA No.860, 861 & 862/Del/2023 Nagar Palika Parishad vs. ITO A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 present circumstances and there exists reasonable cause giving

M/S Kolte Patil Developers Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 704/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkende
Section 143(2)Section 40Section 43C

deduct tax at source as provided under section 194A nor can they be proceeded against under section 201A, treating them as an assessee in default. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal which is impugned in these appeals. The order of the Tribunal

Caledonia Investments Plc, London, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

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

ITA 2458/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2016-17 Caledonia Investments Plc, Assistant Commissioner Of Cayzer House, 30 Income Tax Buckingham Gate, Vs. (International Taxation), London, Sw1E 6Nn, Circle-2(1)(1), United Kingdom Air India Building, Pan : Aaccc4471A Nariman Point, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Harsh R. Shah, For Revenue : Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

related to the demand raised by the AO u/s. 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), treating the assessee as „assessee in default‟ for not deducting tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act in respect of certain remittances made by the assessee to its foreign bank account ... from the above said remittances. Since the assessee did not deduct tax at source, he treated the assessee as an „assessee in default‟ and raised a tax demand of Rs. 65.50 crores, u/s. 201(1) of the Act and interest demand of Rs. 39.95 crores u/s.201

Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Benglauru, Bengaluru vs. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1242/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sharat Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

material on record. On earlier occasion, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal on the issue of assessee being treated as assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act in various ... regarded as "Fee For technical Services" Once there is no violation of provision of section 195, assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act for all the years under consideration. We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the interest levied under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1241/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sharat Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

material on record. On earlier occasion, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal on the issue of assessee being treated as assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act in various ... regarded as "Fee For technical Services" Once there is no violation of provision of section 195, assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act for all the years under consideration. We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the interest levied under

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

vouchers. Further, the assessee also took services from Other Telecom Operators [“OTOs”] and paid ‘roaming charges’ to those OTOs. The AO treated the assessee as defaulter for non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) u/s 194H out of amounts allowed to distributors of sim cards/prepaid vouchers and u/s 194J ... holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

vouchers. Further, the assessee also took services from Other Telecom Operators [“OTOs”] and paid ‘roaming charges’ to those OTOs. The AO treated the assessee as defaulter for non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) u/s 194H out of amounts allowed to distributors of sim cards/prepaid vouchers and u/s 194J ... holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

vouchers. Further, the assessee also took services from Other Telecom Operators [“OTOs”] and paid ‘roaming charges’ to those OTOs. The AO treated the assessee as defaulter for non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) u/s 194H out of amounts allowed to distributors of sim cards/prepaid vouchers and u/s 194J ... holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

Total 1,07,51,114 10,75,111 9,123,844 6. The assessee is treated as "Assessee in Default" u/s, 201(1) and therefore directed to pay the following tax, being tax not deducted at source u/s. 194H and u/s 194A and interest charged for not deposited the same ... appellant cannot be treated as an assessee in default and also charging of consequential interest u/s 201(1A) is not attracted in the case of the appellant. As the appellant has got relief under Grounds No. I to VII, the Ground No. VIII is also ALLOWED.” 4. Aggrieved

Kalu Jat, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 747/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

Section 148ASection 56(2)(i)Section 69

case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order. "if the party at whose instance the reference is made fails to appear at the hearing, or fails

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 250Section 68

person who is deemed to be an assessee under any provision of this Act; (c) every person who is deemed to be an assessee in default under any provision of this Act; "Section 2(29) "legal representative" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (11) of section

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Toshiba Corporation, Gurgoan, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

ITA 2532/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2532/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17) Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-3(1)(1), ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110002

For Appellant: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Deepak Chopra, and Ankul Goyal, Advocates
Section 201Section 201(1)

circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee is not 'assessee in default' as it had rightly effected the applicable TDS on the long term capital gain arising in the hands of the sellers of the shares ... case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee is not 'assessee in default' as it had rightly effected the applicable TDS on the long term capital gain arising in the hands of the sellers of the shares without appreciating

Expertease (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1594/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhrii Ta. No. 1594/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2009-10) Expertease (India) Pvt Ltd, Vs Ito (Tds)-1(2)(2) 3102, Gokul Concorde, Roomno. 805, 8Th Flr, Thakur Village, Smt K G Mittal Kandivali (East), Ayurvedic Hospitalbldg Mumbai-400101. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. Pan/Gir No. Aabce2693P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jotwani. Ar Respondent By Shri P.D Chougule. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 59 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 201(1)/201(1A) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench That, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Electronically On 07.12.2018 & Emphasized On Facts & Relied On The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assesse Company As Under:

Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 201

teenagers are employees and held that these are commission agents and passed the order dated_26/03/2011 holding your appellant to be the assessee in default for non- deduction of tax at the rate of 5.61% under section194 H of Income Tax Act 1961 on the amount paid as incentives ... circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Incoте Тах (Аppeals) [CIT (A)] erred in confirming your appellant to be the assessee in default for non- deduction of income tax on estimated and adhoc amount payout and incentives of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- by rejecting your appellant

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Jaipur

ITA 643/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

1.Ground No. 1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law considering the assessee as assessee in default u/s 201(1) and confirming the demand of Rs. 800671/- u/s 201(1A). 2. Ground No. 2 That the appellant craves to add, amend, and alter the grounds ... 1.Ground No. 1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law considering the assessee as assessee in default u/s 201(1) and confirming the demand of Rs. 1,19,616/- 201(1A). 2. Ground No. 2 That the appellant craves to add, amend, and alter