← 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

St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO(TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 930/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 889/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 890/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 891/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 927/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 930/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. St. Alphonsa Timbers बनाम/ Ito (Tds) & Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. Kochi. Vs. Kundannoor, Maradu (Po), Ernakulam-682304. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamcs9963M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv) Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Of Ita. No. 889/Coch/2022 To Ita. No. 891/Coch/2022 Dated 22.08.2022 For Ay. 2010-11, Ay. 2011-12 & Ay. 2014-15 Respectively. & Ita. No.927/Coch/2022 & 930/Coch/2022 Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay. 2011-12 & Ay. 2014-15. Ita. Nos 927 & 930/Coch/2022. A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers & Traders Pvt. Ltd. First Of All, We Will Deal With Ita. No. 889 To 891/Coch/2022 Since The Issues Are Common, We Will Take Up Appeal For Ay. 2010-11 As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed For Other Two Appeals Ie.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)

assessee is not liable for deducting TCS as per section 206C(1) of the Act and resultantly cannot be treated as an assessee in default as per section 206C(6A) of the Act. We find that as per section 206C of the Act a seller of goods (specified

St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO (TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 927/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 889/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 890/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 891/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 927/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 930/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. St. Alphonsa Timbers बनाम/ Ito (Tds) & Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. Kochi. Vs. Kundannoor, Maradu (Po), Ernakulam-682304. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamcs9963M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv) Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Of Ita. No. 889/Coch/2022 To Ita. No. 891/Coch/2022 Dated 22.08.2022 For Ay. 2010-11, Ay. 2011-12 & Ay. 2014-15 Respectively. & Ita. No.927/Coch/2022 & 930/Coch/2022 Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay. 2011-12 & Ay. 2014-15. Ita. Nos 927 & 930/Coch/2022. A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers & Traders Pvt. Ltd. First Of All, We Will Deal With Ita. No. 889 To 891/Coch/2022 Since The Issues Are Common, We Will Take Up Appeal For Ay. 2010-11 As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed For Other Two Appeals Ie.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)

assessee is not liable for deducting TCS as per section 206C(1) of the Act and resultantly cannot be treated as an assessee in default as per section 206C(6A) of the Act. We find that as per section 206C of the Act a seller of goods (specified

M/S St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders (Pvt) Ltd, Maradu vs. ITO (TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 891/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 889/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 890/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 891/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 927/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 930/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. St. Alphonsa Timbers बनाम/ Ito (Tds) & Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. Kochi. Vs. Kundannoor, Maradu (Po), Ernakulam-682304. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamcs9963M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv) Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Of Ita. No. 889/Coch/2022 To Ita. No. 891/Coch/2022 Dated 22.08.2022 For Ay. 2010-11, Ay. 2011-12 & Ay. 2014-15 Respectively. & Ita. No.927/Coch/2022 & 930/Coch/2022 Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay. 2011-12 & Ay. 2014-15. Ita. Nos 927 & 930/Coch/2022. A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers & Traders Pvt. Ltd. First Of All, We Will Deal With Ita. No. 889 To 891/Coch/2022 Since The Issues Are Common, We Will Take Up Appeal For Ay. 2010-11 As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed For Other Two Appeals Ie.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)

assessee is not liable for deducting TCS as per section 206C(1) of the Act and resultantly cannot be treated as an assessee in default as per section 206C(6A) of the Act. We find that as per section 206C of the Act a seller of goods (specified