← 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)

ITO(TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sashwat Energy Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4279/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer (Tds) – V/S. Sashwat Energy Private 2(2)(1) बनाम Limited, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, 10Th Floor, Universal Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Majestic Lokhande Marg, 400 026, Maharashtra Chembur West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.273/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4279/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2021-22) Sashwat Energy Private V/S. Income Tax Officer (Tds) – Limited, बनाम 2(2)(1), 3Rd Floor, Mtnl 10Th Floor, Universal Majestic Building, Cumballa Hill, Lokhande Marg, Chembur Mumbai – 400 026, West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms Kinjal Bhuta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194JSection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

that the assessee company is "an assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act and is also liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in relation to its failure to deduct tax at source under section 194A of the Act. For the same reasons ... assessee is also held liable for payment of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. P a g e | 10 CO No. 273/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Sashwat Energy Private Limited 7.1 Section 201(1) of the Act envisages that where an assessee does not deduct or does

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 7386/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Dcit Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Room No.320, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Te Vs 7Th Floor Inspire Bkc, G Block, Bkc Building, Pedder Road, Cumballa Main Road, Mumbai Hill, Mumbai [Pan:Aaacn5094N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 194HSection 254(1)

payments to MSMES. 9. On this issue, the Ld. AO held that there is a TDS shortfall of Rs. 40,000/- and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act of Rs. 13,600/-. The Ld. AO held that the Respondent Company ought to have deducted tax under section 194A

DCIT TDS 2-1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Pfizer Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5693/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133B(2)Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer to recompute/levy interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') in relation to TDS on year-end provisions, inspite of holding that the Assessee is not liable ... amounts are subject to TDS provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 80G

assessment proceedings; (ii) and directing the AO to make further enquiries and undertake the assessment afresh in respect of issue of interest under section 201(1A)/206C(7) of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in not appreciating

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Play Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed, in terms of aforesaid

ITA 5623/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

without appreciating the fact that WHARE the concerned parties were identifiable, the obligation to deduet TDS arose, and consequently, the levy of interest under Section 201 (1A) was fully justified and ought to have been upheld 6. Whether, the Learned CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts ... mentioned above. Hence, we uphold the order of Id.CIT(A) on this issue. deduction of tax at source pertaining to Deletion of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act on account of non/short round nos. 1 to 3 Deletion of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act amounting

Shiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-77(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshshiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito (Tds), E-42, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Ward-77(2), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dels29867F Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca Shri Suraj Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

cause notice dated 2-3-2021 to treat the assessee as ‘assessee in default ’ as per section 201(1) and for charging interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for non- deduction of tax at source under section 194C out of the payment made to HUDA against External Development ... assessee could be treated as ‘assessee in default’ for assessment year 2012-13 under section 201(1) of the Act and consequential interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in assessment year 2012-13 only. Hence we hold that the assessee herein cannot be treated as an ‘assessee

Hubtown Bus Terminal (Ahmedabad) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle(TDS), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/AHD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 201

Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the assessee as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act and also levied interest under section 201(1A). The total demand raised was ₹3,45,28,003/-, comprising TDS of ₹1,41,50,821/- and interest ... preceding years, an aspect which has not been examined by the learned ADDL/JCIT (Appeals). The learned counsel also submitted that interest under section 201(1A) of the Act cannot be sustained unless it is first established that the deductee had not paid tax on the relevant income or that

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Novartis Healthcare Private 320, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill, Limited Mtnl Te Bldg. Peddar Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Inspire Bkc, G Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg Block, Bkc Main Road Mumbai-400 026. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 121/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21)

For Respondent: S/Shri Anish Thacker (CA)
Section 133ASection 192Section 194Section 194HSection 201

payments to MSMEs. 9. On this issue, the Ld. AO held that there is a TDS shortfall of Rs. 40,000/- and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act of Rs. 13,600/-. The Ld. AO held that the Respondent Company ought to have deducted tax under section 194A ... company and hence the provisions of section 194 read with section 2(28A) of the Act are not applicable. Consequent levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act should also be deleted, by Ld. AR of the appellant company. 9b. The Ld. DR relied on the orders

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6312/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

/201(1A) of the IT Act. In case of further delay of payment, the Assesse Company is directed to recalculate the interest under section 201(1A) and pay accordingly. If the assessee fails to pay the amount within the period specified, proceedings for recovery thereof can be taken in accordance

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6310/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

/201(1A) of the IT Act. In case of further delay of payment, the Assesse Company is directed to recalculate the interest under section 201(1A) and pay accordingly. If the assessee fails to pay the amount within the period specified, proceedings for recovery thereof can be taken in accordance

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

view taken by the Appellant. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily confirming the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act by the assessing officer. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Circle 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

view taken by the Appellant. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily confirming the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act by the assessing officer. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4564/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4563/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4562/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4561/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4560/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. OSD TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4558/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer Ground No 4: The learned TDS officer erred in levying and computing interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act as TDS was deposited within the prescribed due dates in the following year upon receipt of invoices. Even otherwise interest ... should be computed only up to the date of actual TDS payment, not till the date of the order. Accordingly, interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is erroneous, unwarranted and to be deleted. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in upholding the action of the learned TDS officer

M/S. Excella Realtors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), TDS, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2274/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Excella Realtors Pvt. Ltd..........................................................……….…Appellant 2, Dharma Das Row, Rash Behari Avenue, W.B-700026. [Pan: Aacce1856B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Tds, Kolkata………………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 03, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 01.10.2024, Arising Out Of The Order Passed Under Section 200A(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, M/S Excella Relators Private Limited, Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Land Development. A Demand Notice Was Issued By The Tds-Cpc, Kolkata, Raising A Total Demand Of ₹4,59,653. After Giving Credit For Certain Adjustments Available In The Traces Portal, An Outstanding Demand Of ₹99,482 Towards Interest Under Section 201(1A) & ₹46,400 Towards Late Fee Under Section 234E Remained Payable.

Section 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 201Section 234E

After giving credit for certain adjustments available in the TRACES portal, an outstanding demand of ₹99,482 towards interest under section 201(1A) and ₹46,400 towards late fee under section 234E remained payable. I.T.A. No.2274/Kol/2024 M/s Excella Realtors Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved by the said computation, the assessee preferred ... such fee through processing of TDS statement under section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from 01.06.2015. Moreover, The levy of interest under section 201(1A) amounting to ₹99,482 is not tenable, as the assessee had deposited the TDS within the prescribed time limit, and therefore, no interest