← 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

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 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Teleservices (Mah) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3874/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Mah.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, D-26, Ttc Industrial Mk Road, Mumbai Estate, Midc 400020. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 4000703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1458C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vinay Sinha.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Date Of Hearing 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Vinay Sinha.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Hiten Chande.AR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 32Section 40

upon by the learned Authorised Representative and the learned Departmental Representative. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has treated the assessee as assessee in default alleging non–deduction of tax at source under section 194H, on the reasoning that it has paid commission to the distributors for selling ... upon by the learned Authorised Representative and the learned Departmental Representative. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has treated the assesses as assessee in default alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194H, on the reasoning that it has paid commission to the distributor for selling

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

event, the learned DCIT/Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have appreciated that unless the Appellant is held to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act, it cannot be held that the Appellant had failed to deduct tax at source in accordance with the provisions

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 400/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. T Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(3)

194I and not of 194C calling for a deduction at 10% instead of 2%. The AO therefore treated the assessee as an assessee in- default and passed an order u/s. 201(1) of the Act on 18.02.2020 stating that there is short deduction of tax at source ... w.e.f. 01.04.2010, reads as under: “(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry

Ym Motors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1274/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JaniFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 201Section 250Section 40

provisions of Y.M. Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1274/Mum./2021 Chapter–XVII–B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act, then, for the purpose of this sub–clause, it shall be deemed that

M/S P R Packing Service, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7490/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 40

eligible for immunity from disallowance of expenditure under second proviso to Section 201 of the Act. Hence, assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default. Accordingly, no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act could be made in the hands of the assessee payer. Either way, there is no loss

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

failure to deduct and pay, reflected in section 201 of the Act, follow by virtue of which the resident-payee is deemed an "assessee in default", and thus, is made liable to pay tax, interest and penalty thereon. Section 194E of the Act belongs to a set of various provisions

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3403/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2908/मुं/2019 ("न.व .2015-16) The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. Pan: Aaacl-0582-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 3403/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2015-16) Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaacl-0582-H बनाम Vs. The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 02

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

that provisions of section 115- O of the Act were not applicable, that assessee could not be declared as assessee in default u/s.115 Q of the Act. In our opinion, in the case relied upon by the AR of the assessee, question of taxability of particular items of income under

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2908/मुं/2019 ("न.व .2015-16) The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. Pan: Aaacl-0582-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 3403/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2015-16) Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaacl-0582-H बनाम Vs. The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 02

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

that provisions of section 115- O of the Act were not applicable, that assessee could not be declared as assessee in default u/s.115 Q of the Act. In our opinion, in the case relied upon by the AR of the assessee, question of taxability of particular items of income under

Bhushan Logistics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2480/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 40

accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default on the first proviso to section 201(1), then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that assessee has deducted and paid

ACIT(TDS)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Nesco Complex, Indabrator Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , 400051. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.108/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.1402/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Nesco Complex, Indabrator Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , Mumbai- 400051. 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs9822Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri Yazdi P. Jijina सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri YazdiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 133ASection 201(1)

aforesaid amended provision reads as under:– “(3) No order shall be made under sub–section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry ... substituting the earlier provision with the following:– “(3) No order shall be made under sub–section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. M/S.Dell India Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

year 2012-13. It is submitted that the issue raised in all the appeals are common relating to holding the assessee to be ‘assessee in default’ and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Accordingly all these appeals are being disposed by way of a common order. 2. Brief facts ... 2035/Bang/2016 The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 25.03.2014 deeming the assessee to be an assessee-in-default for non deduction of tax at source on which provision created to the extent of Rs. 44,95,92,282/-, on the ground that

Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

year 2012-13. It is submitted that the issue raised in all the appeals are common relating to holding the assessee to be ‘assessee in default’ and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Accordingly all these appeals are being disposed by way of a common order. 2. Brief facts ... 2035/Bang/2016 The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 25.03.2014 deeming the assessee to be an assessee-in-default for non deduction of tax at source on which provision created to the extent of Rs. 44,95,92,282/-, on the ground that

Dell India P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ltu, Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

year 2012-13. It is submitted that the issue raised in all the appeals are common relating to holding the assessee to be ‘assessee in default’ and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Accordingly all these appeals are being disposed by way of a common order. 2. Brief facts ... 2035/Bang/2016 The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 25.03.2014 deeming the assessee to be an assessee-in-default for non deduction of tax at source on which provision created to the extent of Rs. 44,95,92,282/-, on the ground that

M/S Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Bangalore

ITA 1195/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT(DR)
Section 194CSection 194HSection 194ISection 194JSection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

deducted at source. The above submission of the assessee company has been rejected by the AO and he held the assessee as 'assessee in default' for non deduction of tax at source. The AO accordingly raised demand u/s.201(1) and charged interest for delay in the remittance us/.201(1A) below ... vendor it was not possible for the company to provide vendor-wise details. The AO proceeded to treat the assessee as being assessee in default u/s.201(1) and also charged interest u/s.201(1A) for the delayed remittance of tax up to the date of the assessment order

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ltu, Bangalore

ITA 2392/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.2391 & 2392/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 154Section 190Section 201Section 201(1)Section 37Section 40

they deduct tax at respective rate and remit it to the credit of Central Government. Hence the AO considered the assessee as an “assessee in default” in terms of sec. 190. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee is liable to pay demand u/s 201(1) and interest ... this Act, he or it shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he or it may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax. The contention of the learned DR that the assessee having admitted its default

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ltu, Bangalore

ITA 2391/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.2391 & 2392/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 154Section 190Section 201Section 201(1)Section 37Section 40

they deduct tax at respective rate and remit it to the credit of Central Government. Hence the AO considered the assessee as an “assessee in default” in terms of sec. 190. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee is liable to pay demand u/s 201(1) and interest ... this Act, he or it shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he or it may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax. The contention of the learned DR that the assessee having admitted its default