← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

taxmann.com 719 (Allahabad) where it was held that where the payee had paid the taxes, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act. 17.2 Based on the above we remand to the Ld.AO to verify if the payee has paid ... 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

Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Twinkle Enviro Tech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1371/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 206A

Appeals) erred in confirming the stand taken by the Ld. I.T.O (TDS) by treating the Appellant as assessee in default in terns of section 201 (1) ( and 201(1A). 6. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the stand taken by Ld. I.T.O (TDS) by making the provisions of section

Twinkle Enviro Tech P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1231/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 206A

Appeals) erred in confirming the stand taken by the Ld. I.T.O (TDS) by treating the Appellant as assessee in default in terns of section 201 (1) ( and 201(1A). 6. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the stand taken by Ld. I.T.O (TDS) by making the provisions of section

M/S Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Intl Taxn) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3135/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 195Section 201

equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies itself liable to be considered as an 2. assessee in default in terms of Sec. 201[1] of the Act for the alleged failure to deduct tax u/s. 195 of the Act under the facts ... Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 25 2.1 The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appellant is an assessee in default in as much as the Appellant was unaware of the residential status of Mr. Mahesh Bhupathi which would have necessitated the deduction

M/S.Shilpi Flocking Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 5411/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Shilpi Flocking Co. Pvt. Ltd., C/8, Janardhan Bhavan, B.K. Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai-400081. Pan: Aaacs8671C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-15(3)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Neha Thakur, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 26.04.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Disallowed Rs. 1,50,000/-(6,00,000-4,50,000) As Director’S Remuneration. The Income Tax Officer Has Considered Rs. 4,50,000 Instead Of Rs. 6,00,000 As Director’S Remuneration Paid. The Learned Cit (Appeals) -24 Mumbai Confirmed The Same By Passing The Order Under Section 250 Of The It Act 1961. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Income Tax Officer Erred In Disallowing Rs.5,61,210 & Rs. 1,38,917 On Account

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur, DR
Section 250

paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident— (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such ... resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident such person shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident has furnished his return of income under Section 139 of the Act. No doubt, there is a mandatory

ITO, (It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2823/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S International Ito(It)-2(2)(2), Reinsurance & R. No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Insurance Consultancy India Building, Nariman & Broking Services Pvt. Point, बिधम/ Ltd. Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 15Th Floor, B-Wing, Nirmal Building, 241/242, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaci2859J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, LdFor Respondent: Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

justified in holding that the assessee company is not the payer under section 195 of the Act and hence cannot be the assessee in default under section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act." 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... show caused the assessee as to why M/s. International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. should not be held as „assessee-in-default‟ u/s. 201 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-deduction/ withholding of tax on remittances of premium paid to M/s. Aon Bonfield Asia

M/S. Stonehill Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-12, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration partly stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2061/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

work without deducting tax at source on such payments as per provisions of section 195. 2.2 The Ld.AO held the assessee to be “assessee in default” u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 195 of the Act. The Ld.AO also levied interest u/s. 201(1A). 2.3 The Ld.AO noted that following payments were ... made by assessee has to be decided prior to coming to the conclusion, as to whether the assessee could be termed to be assessee in default. We therefore remit the issues to the Ld.AO for a denovo verification in accordance with law. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee

M/S. Stonehill Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-12, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration partly stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2060/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

work without deducting tax at source on such payments as per provisions of section 195. 2.2 The Ld.AO held the assessee to be “assessee in default” u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 195 of the Act. The Ld.AO also levied interest u/s. 201(1A). 2.3 The Ld.AO noted that following payments were ... made by assessee has to be decided prior to coming to the conclusion, as to whether the assessee could be termed to be assessee in default. We therefore remit the issues to the Ld.AO for a denovo verification in accordance with law. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

initiated by issuing notice dated 31.01.2018 calling upon assessee to show cause as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of tax not deducted at source in respect of the payments in question. In support, the representative of assessee furnished explanation vide letter ... resident(J&P Coats). The Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish details as to why the assessee should not be treated as ‘assessee in default’ for non deduction of TDS on the payment made to J&P Coats. 2.14 The Assessee submitted as under; (i) The amount paid

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

initiated by issuing notice dated 31.01.2018 calling upon assessee to show cause as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of tax not deducted at source in respect of the payments in question. In support, the representative of assessee furnished explanation vide letter ... resident(J&P Coats). The Ld.AO thus called upon assessee to furnish details as to why the assessee should not be treated as ‘assessee in default’ for non deduction of TDS on the payment made to J&P Coats. 2.14 The Assessee submitted as under; (i) The amount paid

Dy CIT (TDS) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Omkar Relators & Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani &
Section 194Section 194ISection 201

Bench held as under: - “8. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has set aside the action of the AO in treating the assessee as assessee in default u/s 194-I of the Act, in respect of payment of compensation by following the decision of the co-ordinate Benches rendered

Dy CIT (TDS)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Omkar Relators & Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2006/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani &
Section 194Section 194ISection 201

Bench held as under: - “8. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has set aside the action of the AO in treating the assessee as assessee in default u/s 194-I of the Act, in respect of payment of compensation by following the decision of the co-ordinate Benches rendered

Cerner Healthcare Solution India Private Limited(Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited) ( Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 254/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

regarded as "Fee For technical Services". Once there is no violation of provision of section 195, assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act for all the years under consideration. We therefore direct the ld. AO to delete interest levied under

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2023/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shiv Prakash, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

assessee on 20.10.2016. In view of the fact, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee in default for furnishing inaccurate S.F. Dyes/Firms 5 particulars of the income. The Ld. CIT(A) also uphold the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

Observing, that payment of CAM charges were essentially a part of the rent, the AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default for short deduction of tax at source u/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. On appeal, it was observed by the Tribunal that the CAM charges ... aside the order of the CIT(A) who had approved the order passed by the AO treating the assessee company as an assessee-in-default u/s.201(1) of the Act. The Grounds of appeal no.4 to 4.5 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 16. As per clause

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

common issue that arises out of the above impugned orders are two fold: 1. Treating the assessee to be an, 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act. And; 2. Levy of interest under section ... under section 201 of the Act to the assessee, to show cause, as to why, the assessee, should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

common issue that arises out of the above impugned orders are two fold: 1. Treating the assessee to be an, 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act. And; 2. Levy of interest under section ... under section 201 of the Act to the assessee, to show cause, as to why, the assessee, should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

common issue that arises out of the above impugned orders are two fold: 1. Treating the assessee to be an, 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act. And; 2. Levy of interest under section ... under section 201 of the Act to the assessee, to show cause, as to why, the assessee, should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

common issue that arises out of the above impugned orders are two fold: 1. Treating the assessee to be an, 'assessee in default' under section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act. And; 2. Levy of interest under section ... under section 201 of the Act to the assessee, to show cause, as to why, the assessee, should not be treated as an 'assessee in default' under section 201(1), of the Act for non-deduction of taxes at source under section 195 of the Act, on payments made