“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

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories viz; (a) payment/credit of interest exceeding ceiling of ceiling ... deducting therefrom a TDS u/s 194A r.w.s. 197A of the Act r.w.s. rule 29C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘the rules’] where assessee branch defaulted in obtaining Valid Form No 15G/15H as applicable [‘first default’] and (b) payment/credit of interest to depositors/customers exceeding ceiling of ₹10,000/- without deducting

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

facts of the case and provisions of law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 3.2. The appellant not being an assessee in default, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO. 4. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s.68: 4.1. The addition of lease

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Base Exports Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 73 (3), Dehli

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5298/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5298/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 M/S Base Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Ward-73(3), Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb6875B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025–26/1076689930(1) Dated 04.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant twin appeals challenges both the learned lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external 2 Base Exports Pvt. Ltd. development charges payments made to M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority ... favour that such are “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14/01/2026. (Amitabh

Tarang Infra Projects Limited, C/O Akul Agarwal and Associates vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 76(3), Delhi, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2940/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year : 2015-16 Tarang Infra Projects Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.D2/20, Sector 10, Tds Ward 76(3), Dlf, Faridabad, Delhi. Haryana – 121 006. Pan: Aaacp3059K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akul Agarwal, Fca (Through Vc) Revenue By : Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, FCA (through VC)For Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

/201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein not being satisfied with the Appellant’s explanation the AO treated the Appellant as “Assessee in default” and passed the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act on 14.03.2022 for F.Y. 2014-15 raising a demand of Rs.1 ... order passed by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act whereby and whereunder the assessee has been treated as an “Assessee in Default” on the alleged ground of 2 non-deduction of tax at source. The first appellate authority, however, confirmed the order relying upon the judgement

U.P Civil Secretariat Primary Cooperative Bank Limited, Lucknow vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 201

conducted in the assessee’s case and certain books of account and documents were impounded. The assessee was treated as an assessee in default for non- deduction of TDS and was directed to pay the total amount of TDS and interest. The assessee filed appeals in the office of learned

U.P Civil Secretariat Primary Cooperative Bank Limited, Lucknow vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 201

U.P Civil Secretariat Primary Co-Operative Bank, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 201

ITO(TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sashwat Energy Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4279/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer (Tds) – V/S. Sashwat Energy Private 2(2)(1) बनाम Limited, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, 10Th Floor, Universal Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Majestic Lokhande Marg, 400 026, Maharashtra Chembur West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.273/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4279/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2021-22) Sashwat Energy Private V/S. Income Tax Officer (Tds) – Limited, बनाम 2(2)(1), 3Rd Floor, Mtnl 10Th Floor, Universal Majestic Building, Cumballa Hill, Lokhande Marg, Chembur Mumbai – 400 026, West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms Kinjal Bhuta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194JSection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

justified in not appreciating the findings made by the AO in the order u/s 201/201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding assessee's default of non-deposit of TDS as the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) has been made by the assessee for the same ... response to the show cause notice as to why it should not be treated as “assessee in default” and order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) should not be passed for such non-compliance of TDS provisions i.e. TDS deducted of Rs. 1,49,52,541/- on payment made amounting

State Bank of India Nalikul Branch, Nalikul vs. Income Tax TDS Ward 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2691/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)

circumstances of the case in their right perspective. 2. The learned CIT(A) & TDS officer both erred in holding the Appellant as an assessee in default under section 201(1) on the basis that tax was not deducted at source on payment of Leave Fare Concession [LFC) and raising ... employees involving enroute foreign travel in lieu of section 10(5) and hence, the Appellant ought not be regarded as an assessee in default. 3 7.Without prejudice to the above, the learned TDS officer & CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that it is a well settled principle in law that

Anil Kumar Gang, Jodhpur vs. ITO 3(1) Jodhpur, Jodhpur

ITA 5313/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth

Section 143(1)Section 154

said tax to the credit of the Central Government within the stipulated time, then the company shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax and the said company shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum ... amount within the stipulated time, then, section 201 of the Act provides that such person shall be deemed to be an assessee in default and the revenue will be entitled to recover the TDS amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum and till the said TDS amount with

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward-1(1), International Taxation, New Del;Hi

In the result, ground of appeal no

ITA 4580/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.4580/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacb-2894-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Ward 1(1), International Taxation, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

source on the payment of interest to ABN Amro and vide order dated 29.03.2010 held the assessee, ‘deemed to be an assessee in default’. The ld. AR submits that the certificate of residence issued by Tax Authorities of Sweden (supra) furnished by ABN Amro was sufficient documentary 3 evidence ... first time on 27.06.2008 that an order u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was passed holding the assessee to be an assessee in default based upon clarification upon from Swedish Tax Agency. The ld. AR placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Juneja Size and Coal Wash Pvt. Ltd, Nikhil Bunglow, Phase-III vs. ITO TDS-1 Bhopal, Bhopal

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 206CSection 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

order made u/s 206C(6A)/ 206C(7) of the Act, the Assessee collector was deemed to be an "Assessee in default” in respect of amount of Rs.11,88,444/- within the meaning of Section 206C(6C) of the Act, for failure to deduct tax at source as discussed above

Juneja Size and Coal Wash Pvt. Ltd, Nikhil Bunglow, Phase-III vs. ITO TDS-1 Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assassee is allowed for statistical

ITA 207/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 206CSection 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

order made u/s 206C(6A)/ 2.1 206C(7) of the Act, the Assessee collector was deemed to be an “Assessee in default” in respect of amount of Rs.11,88,444/- within the meaning of Section 206C(6C) of the Act, for failure to deduct tax at source as discussed above

Hemant Enterprises, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 394/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepa Khare-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 234A

second respondent to the Income-tax Department, recovery can be only directed against the second respondent as the second respondent is the assessee in default. The petitioner cannot be made to pay tax twice. Recovery of any of such Tax Deducted at Source but not remitted by the second respondent ... amount within the stipulated time, then, section 201 of the Act provides that such person shall be deemed to be an assessee in default and the revenue will be entitled to recover the TDS amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum and till the said TDS amount with

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Shiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-77(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshshiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito (Tds), E-42, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Ward-77(2), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dels29867F Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca Shri Suraj Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

report of DCIT (TDS), the Learned AO issued a show cause notice dated 2-3-2021 to treat the assessee as ‘assessee in default ’ as per section 201(1) and for charging interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for non- deduction of tax at source under section 194C ... Shiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd assessment year 2014-15, treating the assessee as an ‘assessee in default’ for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act in respect of EDC paid to HUDA in the sum of Rs 5,65,600 and interest

S3 Infrareality Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7606/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7606/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 S3 Infrareality Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2F-1-3, Ozone Centre Escorts Circle-22(2), Nagar, Faridabad-121007 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aatcs5985J Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081176959(1) Dated 25.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 194CSection 201(1)

assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities respective findings holding it as the assessee in default for not having deducted TDS on payment of external development charges payments made to M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”) which stands treated as contractual ... that such “EDC” payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. I thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating the assessee as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/12/2025. (Satbeer