4. CIT vs. Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd.  161 ITR 477 (Ker.)
The liability of the employer is not independent of the liability of the employee to pay tax.Where assessment in relation to employee has been completed and has become final andthere is no further tax due from the employee; that puts an end to the liability of theemployer to deduct tax.
5. Executive Engineer, T.L.C. Division, A.P. State Electricity Board vs. ITO 20 ITD 318 (Hyd.)
Where no tax was deductible by the employer in normal course but due to grant of exgratia, increments, and D.A., salaries of an employee exceeded taxable limit, it was heldthat no interest could be levied under section 201(1A) for non-deduction in the initialmonths since there was no default on the part of the assessee in terms of section 192(3)and, unless there was default, section 201(1A) was not applicable.
6. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 62 TTJ 268 (Delhi)
Where assessee had since long been reimbursing transportation expenses of its employees,without deduction of tax at source and filing return of tax deducted at source for year underconsideration it could justify its failure to deduct tax at source from such reimbursement onthe ground that it entertained a bona fide belief that no tax was to be deducted from suchreimbursement under section 192.
7. Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. CIT  56 Taxman 213 (Cal.) / (1992) 193 ITR 457(Cal.)
Assessee bank had a number of expatriate officers working in India and these officers wereentitled to proceed on furlough on completion of specific period of service in India. While onfurlough they were entitled to furlough pay. Furlough pay which was paid in foreigncurrency abroad, was held to be salary for services rendered in India and, therefore, it wasan income that accrued in India. Since assessee failed to deduct tax from furlough pay paidto its employees, it was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A).
8. State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 281 (Punj.)
Once the investments, qualifying for tax rebate under section 88 such as PPF, NSC, etc. arefound to be correct after verification, the employer has no further authority in law toexamine the source and record his satisfaction.
9. Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. vs. ITO (2000) 73 ITD 30 (Delhi)
In case of adjustment, either of increasing or decreasing TDS under section 192(3)reference has to be made to the estimated income of 'the assessee'; i.e., an employee andnot all of them taken together deducting from some and refunding to others. Secondly,under section 200 TDS is a statutory deduction which are held on behalf of the Governmenttill deposited and hence adjustments as regards employees as a whole was clearly outsidethe legal mandate. Thus, adjustment of TDS among employees inter se is not permitted butqua each employee adjustment of TDS between months is permitted.
10. Koti Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2000) 74 ITD 437 (Cal) (SMC)