For failure to deduct at source the assessee is treated as assessee in default and passed an order levying interest under section 201(IA) of the Act. The order of AO is affirmed by CIT(A). On appeal the Tribunal held that,it is only in a situation where the originator has subscribed to the Pass Through Certificates (PTCs) of the securitization trust that it can be regarded as an investor within the meaning of S. 115TCA, Expln. (d).Once the originator has not subscribed in PTCs, but the Minimum Retention Requirement (MMR) is maintained via cash collateral and in the form of collateralizing of excess receivables, then the first condition provided in S. 194LBC is not fulfilled. On the facts  the originator i.e., AMPL is not holding any PTCs/SDI, it cannot be regarded as investor as defined in cl. (d) of Explanation to S. 115TCA. Tribunal also held that  since the cash flow received was to be utilized in the manner provided in the water flow mechanism of the trustee, the Excess Interest Spread (EIS) is the residual amount that flows to the originator and is not pursuant to any investment in the securitization trust or return of investment so made. Payment was not in respect of investment made by AMPL in the PTCs issued by the assessee. Surplus represents a reward earned by AMPL for its effort of creating pool of loan receivables which is capable of assigning. MRR requirement was introduced by RBI for the first time in the year 2012 and prior to that there was no requirement for the originator to comply with MRR which further corroborates that EIS cannot be regarded as income in respect of investment.There is   no liability to deduct TDS under s. 194LBC from the payment of EIS. The  assessee  cannot be treated as  an assessee in default. Levy of interest u/s 201(IA) is deleted. (AY. 2018-19)