← 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

Khojema Ali Bohra, Udaipur vs. ITO (TDS), Udaipur

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

ITA 145/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 206A

assessee has violated the provision of the section 194IA of the Act and based on that observation the assessee was considered as assessee in default and demand of TDS of Rs. 70,200/- and interest on it at Rs. 65,988/- was determined as payable. 4. Aggrieved from the order ... assessee submitted that value of property transaction individually below the 50 lac limit as per 194IA the assessee alone cannot be termed as assessee and default and if given a chance this fact be placed on record before the assessing officer the assessee will get the justice in the matter

Sanjay Bajpai Builders Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 30/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 30/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 40

income for the year under consideration and subjected to tax in their hands, then the assessee company could not be deemed as an assessee-in-default, but at the same time in absence of any supporting material cannot summarily accept the said unsubstantiated claim on the very face ... 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 purposes of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted

Amazon Web Services, Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

ITA 523/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 151Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

other words, the assessee is not liable to deduct withholding tax and such non deduction of withholding tax does not render the assessee in default and consequently, no disallowance of amount paid as web hosting charges is to be made in the hands of assessee for such non deduction

Amazon Web Services, Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

ITA 522/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 151Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

other words, the assessee is not liable to deduct withholding tax and such non deduction of withholding tax does not render the assessee in default and consequently, no disallowance of amount paid as web hosting charges is to be made in the hands of assessee for such non deduction

JCIT (OSD) Circle-77(1), New Delhi vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1336/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Alok Basant, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 4

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 ... payee] or on the sum credited to the account of a 52[payee] shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such 52[payee]- (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139: (ii) has taken into account such

Suncity Cinemas Pvt Ltd, Hisar vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1602/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 @ 10% on the above said payments. Therefore, the assessee/PR has been treated as an assessee in default and TDS amounting to Rs.5,28,345/- (Rs.4,12,845/+1,10,000+ 5,500/-) u/s 201(1) + Interest

ITO (TDS), Ward-2(3), Nagpur vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 76/NAG/2017[2014-115]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2014-115

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya D. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

prescribed form in relevant quarterly returns. Rejecting the above contentions of the assessee, the TDS Officer had held that the assessee as “assessee in default” for non-deduction of tax at source and demanded TDS amount u/s 201(1) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015. 5. Being aggrieved ... form of such transport contractors to the Department. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the TDS Officer not to treat the assessee as “assessee in default” and also directed to delete the demand raised u/s 201(1) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO (TDS), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 75/NAG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya D. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

prescribed form in relevant quarterly returns. Rejecting the above contentions of the assessee, the TDS Officer had held that the assessee as “assessee in default” for non-deduction of tax at source and demanded TDS amount u/s 201(1) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015. 5. Being aggrieved ... form of such transport contractors to the Department. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the TDS Officer not to treat the assessee as “assessee in default” and also directed to delete the demand raised u/s 201(1) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO (TDS), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 74/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya D. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

prescribed form in relevant quarterly returns. Rejecting the above contentions of the assessee, the TDS Officer had held that the assessee as “assessee in default” for non-deduction of tax at source and demanded TDS amount u/s 201(1) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015. 5. Being aggrieved ... form of such transport contractors to the Department. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the TDS Officer not to treat the assessee as “assessee in default” and also directed to delete the demand raised u/s 201(1) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO (TDS), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 73/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.73 To 76/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 Ito (Tds), Ward-2(3), Vs. Acc Ltd., Chandrapur- 442401. Chanda Cement Works, P.O. Cement Nagar, Chandrapur, Dist.- Chandrapur, Chandrapur - 442502. Pan : Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Maurya Pratap Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.12.2016 Quashing The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Ward-2(3), Chandrapur U/S 201(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.73/Nag/2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya D. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

prescribed form in relevant quarterly returns. Rejecting the above contentions of the assessee, the TDS Officer had held that the assessee as “assessee in default” for non-deduction of tax at source and demanded TDS amount u/s 201(1) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015. 5. Being aggrieved ... form of such transport contractors to the Department. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the TDS Officer not to treat the assessee as “assessee in default” and also directed to delete the demand raised u/s 201(1) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5386/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarstate Bank Of India, Vs. Acit, Office Administration Circle-77(1), Department, 4Th Floor, Local New Delhi Head Office, 11-Sansad Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacs8577K Assessee By : Shri Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10(5)Section 139Section 192Section 192(1)Section 201

designated. 3. Without prejudice to ground no 2 above, the Ld CIT (A) has also erred in treating the bank as an "assessee in default" by considering the bona fide belief of the bank as mala fide for alleged non deduction of TDS on reimbursement towards Leave Travel Concession. State ... 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

M/S R.R.Roadways Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1269/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 40

under:- “I find that as per the 1st proviso to section 201 of the Act, a person is not considered to be an assessee in default when the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied; The deductee has furnished return u/s 139 of the Act for the relevant  year; The amount ... table above. Therefore, the Appellant is not covered by 1st proviso to section 201(1) and therefore, is deemed to be an assessee in default. Further, I uphold the action of the AO in disallowing the interest of Rs.64,22,108/- u/s 40(a)(ia) paid to the above NBFCs

Gopal Global Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS Ward 74(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 194CSection 2Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 3(3)(ii)

grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer for treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ towards failure to deduct tax as required under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act towards amount paid as External Development Charges (EDC) to Directorate of Town

ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi vs. Ball Beverage Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 6680/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

payments. AO held that the company was liable to make TDS which it failed to do and accordingly, it was being treated as assessee in default for not making TDS u/s 195 of the Act. As such, AO held that the payments made to foreign entities are liable

Ball Beverage Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 6607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

payments. AO held that the company was liable to make TDS which it failed to do and accordingly, it was being treated as assessee in default for not making TDS u/s 195 of the Act. As such, AO held that the payments made to foreign entities are liable

Vishesh Films Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (TDS), Circle-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1106/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vishesh Films Pvt. Ltd., Jcit (Osd) (Tds), Circle 2(3), 402, Durga Chambers, Linking Mtnl, Telephone Exchange Vs. Road, Khar (West), Building, Cumballa Hills, Peddar Mumbai-400052. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacv 9556 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Mathews, DR
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

case the acts and circumstances of the case the Appellant cannot be treated as an Appellant cannot be treated as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act "assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act "assessee in default" under section ... income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) passed by the Assessing Officer holding the assessee in default for passed by the Assessing Officer holding the assessee in default for passed by the Assessing Officer holding the assessee in default for deducting

F I L Industries Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 72/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 80I

confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has fails to deduct the TDS as assessee was deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to Sub-section 1 of section 201, of the Act. For the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Rdb Cars Private Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 140/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Khandelwal (C.A)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 201(1)Section 249(2)Section 40

facts of the case were carefully considered. The Section 201(1) of the Act, talks about when assessee is not treated as assessee in default. Section 201(1) of the Act, states that any person liable to deduct TDS on the income distributed makes default in the deduction and/or payment ... shall be treated as 'assessee in default" However, the assessee would not be deemed to be an assessee in default if payee: i) has furnished his return of income under section 139, ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and 5 DCIT

District Mining Officer, Bemetara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 9/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

source on the amounts received from the illegal miners and transporters of minerals, therefore, it was to be held as an “assessee-in-default” within the meaning of sub-sections (6) and (6A) of Section 206C of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O raised a consequential demand towards collection ... collected tax at source on the amounts collected towards DMF and NMET from the lease holders, the A.O after treating the assessee as ‘assessee-in-default’ under sub-section (6) to Section 206C of the Act saddled it with an obligation to make good the said non-collection

District Mining Officer, Bemetara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur

ITA 8/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

source on the amounts received from the illegal miners and transporters of minerals, therefore, it was to be held as an “assessee-in-default” within the meaning of sub-sections (6) and (6A) of Section 206C of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O raised a consequential demand towards collection ... collected tax at source on the amounts collected towards DMF and NMET from the lease holders, the A.O after treating the assessee as ‘assessee-in-default’ under sub-section (6) to Section 206C of the Act saddled it with an obligation to make good the said non-collection