- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court Rules If Employer Fails To Deposit TDS, Staff Not Liable To Pay It
Bombay High Court Rules If Employer Fails To Deposit TDS, Staff Not Liable To Pay It
The order provides relief to employees of companies who received related tax notices
The Bombay High Court has ruled that employees are not responsible for depositing tax deducted at source (TDS) if their employer, undergoing resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), fails to do it.
The order provides relief to employees of companies such as Byju's who received tax notices because they failed to deposit the TDS. Recently, employees of Tata Consultancy Services, India's largest IT services company, received income tax notices about discrepancies in their TDS.
The bench comprising Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan and Justice GS Kulkarni was hearing the writ petitions of several individuals.
The court ruled, "When an obligation to deposit the tax, as in the present case, is on the employer and if the employer has defaulted, the liability to pay such tax cannot be put on the employees.”
Citing the provisions of Section 205 and a Central Board of Direct Taxes office memorandum of 11 March 2016, the order read, "The mandate is clear that the assessee will not have to pay taxes that have been deducted from his income.”
Sandeep Jhunjhunwala, the tax partner at Nangia Andersen LLP stated, "The judgment comes at a crucial time and would be beneficial to many salaried employees, where their erstwhile employers have defaulted in the remittance of payroll withholding tax to the Income Tax Department.”