“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

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

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

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

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)

District Election Office Hamirpur, Sub Divisional Magistrate Office, Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS) Mandi, Mandi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 462/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 462/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 District Election Office, The Ito (Tds), बनाम Sub Divisional Magistrate Mandi Office, Vs. Hamirpur 171001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ptldi1969Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Abhinav, Advocate (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Abhinav, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201

Officer. 4. That in the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding charging of Interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the ld. Addl

Himachal Mitra Mandal Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward 1(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 777/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarhimachal Mitra Mandal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds Cooperative Credit Society बनाम Ward – 1(2)(3), Room No. Limited 419, 4Th Floor, Cumballa Hill C/O Vaish Associates, 106, Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai – Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 012, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaah0613D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi,(Sr. DR)

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 5

appellant in deciding that appellant is not a cooperative bank. 5. The assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

done, it was held that the assessee was liable to make good the payment of TDS which it had not deducted. Also interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act was levied. The Appeal before the Commissioner was also dismissed. 9. In these circumstances, the proceedings had reached the Tribunal

M/S Spearsearch Solutions, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

ITA 3216/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Indrajit Ramchandra Jagtap, Maharashtra vs. ITO TDS Ward Kolhapur

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

ITA 570/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

section 1941A, AD, TDS, Kolhapur applying section 1941A treated me as "Assessee in default, and has passed Order under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) is levied. 2. That, Order under section 201, was passed on 31-03-2023 The appeal before CIT(A), NFAC, should have been

Perfect Filaments Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

ITA 3501/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 40Section 80G

Form CD (Tax Audit Report), the Tax Auditor has certified in clause 34(c) that the assessee is liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) or section 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act. The total amount of interest u/s. 201(1A)/206C(7) is shown at Rs.6 ... Revenue on the following issues: - (a) Interest on delayed payment of TDS to the tune of Rs.92,01,623/- is disallowable. (b) Interest under section 201(1A) / section 206C(7) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,87,150/- was not disallowed by the assessee while computing its total income

Cian Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT (It) Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 676/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

treated as “assessee in default” under section 201(1) for an amount of Rs. 10,31,250/- and consequential interest under section 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,29,300/- aggregating to Rs.14,60,550/- . 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the above order

Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency, Jaipur vs. It Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 808/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

during COVID period i.e. situation beyond the control of the assessee. 6. In support of the assessee’s request for waiver of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, it is respectfully submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide Circular No. 11/2017 dated 24th ... above, it is submitted that there existed a reasonable cause for the delay in TDS payment. Therefore, the levy of interest under section 201(1A) may kindly be considered for deletion or waiver on these justifiable and bona fide grounds. To support his submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2392/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (196 ITR 406) (Bom) has decided that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said ... observed that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435) (Mad) also held that interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is not deductible. Both the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court have placed reliance

Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. TDS Ward 1(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1306/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Jaayant Bhatt

Section 197A(1)Section 200(3)Section 201Section 234ESection 80P(2)(d)

from the Appellant and the Appellant should not be treated as "Assessee in Default". 8) The Learned ITO(TDS) erred in levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. In any case quantification of interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 1,75,634/- is erroneous and excessive without proper ... from the Appellant and the Appellant should not be treated as "Assessee in Default". 8) The Learned ITO(TDS) erred in levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. In any case quantification of interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 1,75,634/- is erroneous and excessive without proper

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

DCIT(TDS)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4431/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Mumbai, ............... Appellant V/S Piramal Enterprises Limited, Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park Kamini Junction Lbs Marg Opp. Fire Brigade Kurla, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400070 Pan : Aaacn5024A

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi (Virtually present)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 133B(2)Section 193Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

Enterprises Ltd and Piramal Capital and Housing Finance 4 Ltd and raised a demand of INR 33,73,87,782 and levied interest under section 201(1A) of the Act of INR 4,17,24,480, thereby raising the total demand of INR 37,91,22,261. 5. The learned ... deduct tax at source under section 194A of the Act. Thus, levy of tax under section 201(1) and levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under section 194A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, grounds no.1, 2, and 4 raised

Hi Techno Control System Pvt Ltd, Dombivili vs. Ds Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

ITA 1525/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1525/Mum/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17 Hi Techno Control System Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bali8Ram Patil Industrial Estate, Kalyan Shili Road, Behind G.R. Patil College, Sonarpada, Kalyan-Dombivali-421 204 Pan : Aacch0649D ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Hi Techno Control System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(2)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

within the calendar month of the order pass date. In case of further delay in payment, you are advised to recalculate the interest under section 201(1A) for Sl. No. 3(a) & (a) and pay accordunels 7 Hi Techno Control System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for

ITA 1027/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 154Section 201

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR

M/S. the Coimbatore District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, TDS Ward-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1004/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1004/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Coimbatore District Central The Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. Tds Ward-2 (I/C), 80, State Bank Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Aabat 3010F]

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 133ASection 194NSection 201Section 201(1)

payment of tax made by the Cooperative Societies will be given credit to in finalizing the proceedings under section 201(1). Interest under section 201(1A) will run from the due date of deduction till date of passing of order as per statute. 100. Learned Judge has made an observation

M/S. Rita Transport, Burdwan vs. DCIT(TDS), Circle 4(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ESection 250

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. by charging the Interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.3,98,171/- which is illegal has to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... respect of payments of Rs.5,85,84,115/- to the transporters and in charging the tax in default along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the demand so raised by the AO is confirmed. Accordingly, the Grounds No. 1 & 2 are dismissed.” 3.1 Aggrieved with

Hester Bioscience Limited, Mehsana vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 201Section 263Section 40Section 80G

interests of the Revenue. First, it was observed that the assessee’s auditor had certified in the tax audit report that interest under section 201(1A) or 206C(7) amounting to ₹98,791/- was payable. However, this amount was not disallowed while computing the total income, nor was it disallowed ... accordance with the provisions then in force. After considering the submissions, of the assessee, the Principal CIT restored the matter regarding the interest under section 201(1A)/206C(7) to the file of the A.O. for limited verification. The A.O. was directed to confirm whether the amount

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-73(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5648/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

whether the assessee could be treated as assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act and consequential levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act in respect of non-deduction of tax at source in terms of section 194C of the Act for External Development Charges ... 5648/Del/2024 Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd default’ in terms of section 201(1) of the Act and consequentially liable for levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the said order of the learned CITA. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-73(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)