https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94565 HC held that the appellant-employer could not be treated as an "assessee in default" under s.201(1) for non-deduction of TDS under s.192 on Leave Travel Concession reimbursements for AY 2016-17. In view of subsisting interim directions of the Madras HC during the relevant financial year, the appellant had no operative obligation to deduct tax "at the time of payment," a precondition for invoking s.201. Consequently, interest under s.201(1A) was also held inapplicable. HC further noted that the first proviso to s.201(1) protects a payer where the payee has duly accounted for such amounts in the return of income. Earlier adverse findings of the SC for a different assessment year were distinguished. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:27 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94565 HC held that the appellant-employer could not be treated as an "assessee in default" under s.201(1) for non-deduction of TDS under s.192 on Leave Travel Concession reimbursements for AY 2016-17. In view of subsisting interim directions of the Madras HC during the relevant financial year, the appellant had no operative obligation to deduct tax "at the time of payment," a precondition for invoking s.201. Consequently, interest under s.201(1A) was also held inapplicable. HC further noted that the first proviso to s.201(1) protects a payer where the payee has duly accounted for such amounts in the return of income. Earlier adverse findings of the SC for a different assessment year were distinguished. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee. Highlights Income Tax Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:27 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94565