← 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

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 104/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenadiadwala Grandson Vs. Ito (Tds) – 2(4) Entertainment Pvt Ltd. Room No. 705, Kg Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Mittal Ayurvedic View, Versova, Jp Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Andheri (W), Mumbai – Road (W), Mumbai – 400 061. 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Mani Jain. Ar Respondent By : Mr.C.T. Mathews.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 60, Mumbai Passed U/S 201(1)/201(1A) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Mani Jain. ARFor Respondent: Mr.C.T. Mathews.Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

aspects and the meaning of “producer” and TDS implications. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. Finally the A.O. has treated the assessee as “assessee in default” and observed at page 11 Para 4.6 to 5 of the order read as under and passed the order ... paid by the assessee company to its Directors u/s 194J of the Act and the assessee company could not be held as ‘assessee in default’ u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. We order accordingly. 10. We find the submissions of the Ld.AR are realistic and cannot