https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436462 A challenge to a TDS order was not maintainable where the appellant was neither the deductor nor the person treated as assessee in default under section 201(1), so no appeal lay in that capacity. On the merits, section 192 requires tax deduction at source at the time of payment of salary; because the salary under the settlement was not actually paid and was instead foregone, no TDS liability arose on the accrued but unpaid amount. The appeal therefore failed on both maintainability and merits, leaving the view that no default was made out undisturbed. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436462 A challenge to a TDS order was not maintainable where the appellant was neither the deductor nor the person treated as assessee in default under section 201(1), so no appeal lay in that capacity. On the merits, section 192 requires tax deduction at source at the time of payment of salary; because the salary under the settlement was not actually paid and was instead foregone, no TDS liability arose on the accrued but unpaid amount. The appeal therefore failed on both maintainability and merits, leaving the view that no default was made out undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436462