“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

Ajay Alloys (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 5174/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5174/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Ajay Alloy(S) (P) Ltd., Dcit C/O Babubhai & Co., 152, Vs. Circle-2(1), Office Complex, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaeca9815E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 234ASection 40

therefore, in view of proviso to section 201(1) of the Act the assessee cannot be treated as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the interest paid for non deduction of tax at source and thus, no disallowance ... paid interest to them on the loans for the FY April 2012 to March 2013 and, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for non deduction of tax at source in view of proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. 9. On the other hand

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

under wrong head which cannot lead to disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and appellant cannot be treated as assessee in default u/s 201 of Income Tax Act, 1961.” AY 2021-22 “1. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

made in terms of said section for non- deduction of tax at source, if the assessee was found to be not an assessee in default on account of the fact that payees had paid taxes on the said receipts and the fulfilment of other conditions. It is this rectification sought ... accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted

Shweta Infrastructure & Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. DCIT, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3851/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shweta Infrastructure & Housing Dy. Cit, Circle 13(2)(2), (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Samraat Head Quarters, A33, 7Th Marine Lines, Lane, Satpur Midc Road, Nice Mumbai-400020. Area, Nashik-422007. Pan No. Aajcs 4306 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2024

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 220(6)Section 246A

while dismissing the ojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (MP) while dismissing the reference at the instance of the assessee in default made following reference at the instance of the assessee in default made following reference at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their

Executive Engineer Construction Division No.2, Bhopal vs. DCIT (TDS), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 348/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Executive Engineer, Dy. Cit (Tds), Construction, Bhopal Division No.2, बनाम/ E-5, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bplo 00510 G Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

Section 12ASection 139Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in deeming the assessee as assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the payee society i.e. EPCO has correctly included the stated receipts in its income and filed ... valid income tax return for the A.Y. 2014-15 and as such it cannot be deemed to be assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. AO erred in not considering that the appellant

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

India-Ireland DTAA, the right to tax these profits is solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default u/s 201 of the I.T.Act for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the I.T.Act while making the subject payment

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Pooja Crafted Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 61/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pooja Crafted Homes (P) Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadcp2869A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S K Gupta, राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S K GuptaFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 37Section 40

payment of interest but also, in case of failure to make or pay the amount, provide for declaring such a person as an assessee in default. In view of the above said reasoning, we do not find any reason to allow the ground of the assessee. Though, the assessee

Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Presently Circle-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 201(1)Section 40

/206C(7) of the Act dated 22.03.2017 with a demand of tax and interest of Rs.3,03,003/- by holding the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ towards deduction of tax at source. 4.2. After the above stated proceedings, Ld. AO on receipt of information from ACIT, Central 2 (TDS), Kolkata ... treated the assessee is assessee in default for payment of certain expenditure without making TDS, proceeded to reopen the assessment u/s. 147 for which a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 31.03.2017. 4.3. In the reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment proceedings, it is noted that information

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

applicable in the case of the assessee and accordingly accepting that it is not deemed to be an assessee in default as per the second proviso to Sec. 40a(ia) of the I.T. Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee had itself considered ... upon by the appellant is that “disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. The first proviso to subsection (1) of section 201 provides that a person

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai, Pedder Road vs. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2633/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 133B(2)Section 201(1)

issued to the assessee and an opportunity to explain was granted to the assessee why the assessee should not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The relevant show-cause notice was reproduced in the order under section ... manufacturers/ suppliers/ vendors who supplied the finished products to the appellant and I also hold that the appellant is not 'an assessee in default’ for the purpose of section 201(1). I direct the AO to vacate the demand of Rs. 2,37,17,965/- and interest demand

M/S. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Successor M/S. P I Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3585/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

deducted are not liable to tax deduction. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that Appellant is not treated as 'an assessee in default' under provisions of Sec 201. 4. Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that disallowance for non deduction of tax was made without any show

M/S. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Successor M/S. P I Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3584/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

M/S. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Successor M/. P I Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3583/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

State Bank of India, Main Branch, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-77(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Dipti Kandola, Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)

case and provisions of the law, the Ld AO as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in treating the bank as "assessee in default". ITA Nos. 2502 to 2513/Del/2022 3 State Bank of India 4. That consequential to our Ground No.1, 2 & 3 above, the learned ... under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part