https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782305 HC held that the assessee-bank could not be treated as an assessee in default under s.201 for non-deduction of TDS u/s 192 on Leave Travel Concession reimbursements for AY 2016-17. Since an interim order of Madras HC had then held prima facie that such payments were not taxable in employees' hands, the assessee had no enforceable obligation to deduct tax "at the time of payment." Consequently, s.201(1) and s.201(1A) (interest) were inapplicable. HC also noted the first proviso to s.201(1) and distinguished later SC findings, which related to AY 2013-14. Appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782305 HC held that the assessee-bank could not be treated as an assessee in default under s.201 for non-deduction of TDS u/s 192 on Leave Travel Concession reimbursements for AY 2016-17. Since an interim order of Madras HC had then held prima facie that such payments were not taxable in employees' hands, the assessee had no enforceable obligation to deduct tax "at the time of payment." Consequently, s.201(1) and s.201(1A) (interest) were inapplicable. HC also noted the first proviso to s.201(1) and distinguished later SC findings, which related to AY 2013-14. Appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782305