← All Phrases

“interest under section 201(1A)”

TDS / TCSSection 201(1A)Section 201(1A)369 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest under section 201(1A) is Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (293 ITR 226), cited in 576 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest under section 201(1A)

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
201 ITR 684 · 1993 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

Compensatory interest or damages paid for a breach of contract, arising in the normal course of business, are allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. This principle extends to indirect taxes paid in the course of business, which are admissible as business expenditure.

Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT
230 ITR 733 · 1998 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that interest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, for failure to deduct tax at source, is not an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.

Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT
254 ITR 799 · 2002 · Supreme Court
119
citing judgments

Interest paid on delayed payment of statutory dues, such as sales tax, service tax, TDS, and GST, is compensatory in nature rather than penal. Consequently, such interest is an allowable deduction in computing business profits.

American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT
258 ITR 601 · 2002 · High Court
90
citing judgments

Interest paid by banks is allowable as a deduction in computing total income. The decision distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijaya Bank regarding the deductibility of such interest.

CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd.
239 ITR 435 · 1999 · High Court
77
citing judgments

Interest paid under section 201(1A) for delay in remitting tax deducted at source is not an allowable business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment. This interest takes its character from the nature of the tax levy, being a direct tax itself.

CIT v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
125 Taxmann 1094 · 2002 · High Court
77
citing judgments

Interest levied under Section 201(1A) for delayed remittance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is compensatory in nature, not penal. It is a distinct provision for delayed remittance, similar to interest paid by Revenue on refunds.

Bank Ltd. (supra), Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (TDS)
54 Taxmann.com 297 · 2015 · Reported
76
citing judgments

A multi-state cooperative bank is obligated to deduct tax at source on interest paid on fixed deposits placed by cooperative societies, as Section 194A(3)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rather than Section 194A(3)(v), applies to cooperative banks in this context.

Judgments citing interest under section 201(1A)

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

ITA 1236/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

DCIT 5. Elaborating further on its contention, it was submitted by the assessee company that the ITO (TDS), CPC had levied interest under section 201(1A), fee under section 234E and interest under section 220(2) of the Act for the reason that there was a delay in delivering/filing ... assessee company observed that the same was comprised of, viz., (i) demand towards fee under section 234E: Rs.2,41,340/-; (ii) interest under section 201(1A): Rs.48,529/-; and (iii) interest under section 220(2): Rs.12,032/-. The CIT(A) observed that the amount of interest under section 201(1A

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3244/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

held the appellant as assessee in default and accordingly raised demand of Rs.4,94,275/- under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 6.2 The appellant, during appellate proceedings, submitted that the appellant is a co-operative society owned by the State Govt. of Haryana

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

held the appellant as assessee in default and accordingly raised demand of Rs.4,94,275/- under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 6.2 The appellant, during appellate proceedings, submitted that the appellant is a co-operative society owned by the State Govt. of Haryana

The Haryana State Coop La Bour & Construction Fed L Td, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3242/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3242/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3243/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3244/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 The Haryana State Cooperative Labour Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds) & Construction Federation Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Bay No. 23-24, Sector-2, Panchkula, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-134109 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaft8979R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals For Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai’S Din & Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024–25/1074658982(1), 1074659438(1) & 1074660137(1) Dated 18.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

held the appellant as assessee in default and accordingly raised demand of Rs.4,94,275/- under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 6.2 The appellant, during appellate proceedings, submitted that the appellant is a co-operative society owned by the State Govt. of Haryana