← 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

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 1324/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

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

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

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

ITA 1323/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

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

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 1322/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

Ahlers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 524/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 524/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Pan: Aaeca 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059291012 (1) Dated 02.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.02.2016. The Impugned Giving Effect To The Order Of The Tribunal Was Framed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai Vide Order Dated 22.08.2017. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Expenses Paid To Various Non-Resident Parties For Non-Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,26,73,426/-. This Is The Only Limited Issue On Merits But Assessee Has Raised Various Other Issues Of Proper Opportunity Etc., Which Will Be Dealt With Later.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

opinion, if the recipient of the payment has disclosed the impugned receipt as their income, then the assessee cannot be considered as the assessee in default in terms of sec.201(1) of the Act so as to invoke the provisions of the section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly ... that if the recipient of the payment has disclosed the receipts of their income, then the assessee company should not be treated as assessee in default as per provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since this provision was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with effect