← 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

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’] and has paid due taxes thereon. Thus, the assessee cannot be held to be the assessee in default under the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act, consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made ... assessee where the assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter –XVIIB, but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under 1st Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act, thus, for the purpose of section 40(a)(ia) it shall

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result Ground No. 1(c) raised by the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 563/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit (Tds)-2(3), Room No. 718, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. ...... Appellant Vs. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aabct3784C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit (Dr) Respondent By : Sh. Hiten Chande Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-60, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2018 Passed Under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT (DR)For Respondent: Sh. Hiten Chande
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

towards Director's Sitting Fees should not fall under the provision of section 1943 and the b assessee should not be treated as assessee in default U/s. 201 and 201(1A). The authorised representative of the assessee company Shri Rushabh Seth Chartered Accountant from M/s. S.R. Batlibol ... deducted, which works out to Rs.1,01,970/- (9,00,000 x 11.33%) The assessee company is deemed to be an assessee in default within the provisions of Sec. on 201(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, the default under the head Director's sitting fees is at Rs.1

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be 24 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. 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

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be 24 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. 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

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be 24 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. 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

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

solely with Ireland. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held to be 24 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. 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

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1, Mumabi vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 715/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

certain eligible payments, then the payer assessee could be certain eligible payments, then the payer assessee could be treated as treated as „assessee in default‟ and the said tax could be ‟ and the said tax could be recovered from the payer assessee on behalf of the payee. But recovered from ... automatical not automatically cast a TDS obligation on the payer and ly cast a TDS obligation on the payer and make the payer „assessee in default make the payer „assessee in default‟ when it is certain from ‟ when it is certain from the records in the form of assessment order

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1 Thane, Thane vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 714/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

certain eligible payments, then the payer assessee could be certain eligible payments, then the payer assessee could be treated as treated as „assessee in default‟ and the said tax could be ‟ and the said tax could be recovered from the payer assessee on behalf of the payee. But recovered from ... automatical not automatically cast a TDS obligation on the payer and ly cast a TDS obligation on the payer and make the payer „assessee in default make the payer „assessee in default‟ when it is certain from ‟ when it is certain from the records in the form of assessment order