← 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

Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.511 & 512/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Avenue Road, Tds, Ward 1(1) Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafcp 2805A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Menon, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Two Appeals Being Ita Nos.511-512/Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 29.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Chennai-20 For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Assessment Years, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Being Taken As Lead Case & Our Order Thereon Will Mutatis Mutandis Apply To Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Accordingly. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511-512/Chny/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

case 2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in Rs.87,84,617/- holding that the appellant is to be considered as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) and in not quashing the interest charged by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1A). 3 The Learned CIT(Appeals ... case 2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in Rs.45,37,296/- holding that the appellant is to be considered as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) and in not quashing the interest charged by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1A). 3 The Learned CIT(Appeals

Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1-(1), Chennai

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 511/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.511 & 512/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Photon Kathaas Production Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Avenue Road, Tds, Ward 1(1) Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafcp 2805A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Menon, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Two Appeals Being Ita Nos.511-512/Chny/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 29.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], Chennai-20 For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Common Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Assessment Years, Therefore, For The Sake Of Brevity Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511/Chny/2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Being Taken As Lead Case & Our Order Thereon Will Mutatis Mutandis Apply To Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Accordingly. Grounds Of Appeal Filed In Ita No.511-512/Chny/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 133Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

case 2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in Rs.87,84,617/- holding that the appellant is to be considered as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) and in not quashing the interest charged by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1A). 3 The Learned CIT(Appeals ... case 2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in Rs.45,37,296/- holding that the appellant is to be considered as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) and in not quashing the interest charged by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1A). 3 The Learned CIT(Appeals

The Dy.DIT, (Intl. Taxn.)- 1, Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2398/AHD/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 195(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

relevant DAA. 2.3. Therefore, the AO issued show-cause notice to the assessee as to why the assessee should not be treated as assessee in default for failure to deduct tax before making these payments to Mycom (UK). The details of payments are:- The DCIT (Intl.Taxn.)-1 vs. Vodafone West

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT(TDS), Kanpur

ITA 187/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Zonal Office, The Mall Road, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps02318B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps01627D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Sk Sharma [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Twin Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Separate Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045081675(1) & 1045081558(1) Both Dt. 31/08/2022 Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ In Short] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ In Short] Confirming The Order Dt. 21/03/2018 Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-51(1), Nagpur [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2011- 12 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(ha)Section 250

hereinafter] / Leave Fair Concession [‘LFC’ hereinafter] the Ld. AO called upon the assessee to showcase as to why assessee be not treated as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS in relation to aforestated LTC/LFC granted/reimbursed to its employee. 3.2 Considering the nature of non-compliance and submission ... assessee thereagainst, separate orders u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act was passed holding both these assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from the payment/reimbursement of LTC/LFC to its employees etc. This action exposed both these assessee to a demand

State Bank of India, Zonal Office, the Mall Road, Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT(TDS), Kanpur

ITA 186/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Zonal Office, The Mall Road, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps02318B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps01627D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Sk Sharma [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Twin Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Separate Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045081675(1) & 1045081558(1) Both Dt. 31/08/2022 Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ In Short] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ In Short] Confirming The Order Dt. 21/03/2018 Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-51(1), Nagpur [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2011- 12 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(ha)Section 250

hereinafter] / Leave Fair Concession [‘LFC’ hereinafter] the Ld. AO called upon the assessee to showcase as to why assessee be not treated as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS in relation to aforestated LTC/LFC granted/reimbursed to its employee. 3.2 Considering the nature of non-compliance and submission ... assessee thereagainst, separate orders u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act was passed holding both these assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from the payment/reimbursement of LTC/LFC to its employees etc. This action exposed both these assessee to a demand

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, all four these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1325/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

show cause notice dated 11.07.2022 to the assessee for the FY 2017-18 as to why the assessee should not be treated "assessee in default" since as per the Income Tax Act and the nature of activities of the Azure Cloud Software and Service Providers like Airtel, TATA, and Reliance ... /201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short) dated 16.12.2022 wherein AO held the assessee as ‘deemed to be an assessee in default’ as the assessee failed to deduct the TDS and pay the amount to the Central Government Treasury. Before ld.CIT(A) none appeared