← 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)

Santhanagopalan Chitra, Tiruchirapalli vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 1725/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1725/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Santhanagopalan Chitra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-2(S), X-A, Cross, Thillainagar, Tds Ward 1, Tiruchirapalli 620 018. Tiruchirapalli 620 002. [Pan: Aaepc5516B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.05.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 1Section 192Section 194JSection 201

Assessing Officer in levying interest 3 I.T.A. No.1725/Chny/24 under section 201(1A) of the Act by holding that the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is consequential and mandatory. 5. The ld. DR Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT submits that the assessee is not contesting the chargeability ... under section 194J of the Act and accordingly, paid the additional amount to the exchequer. The assessee cannot raise non-levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act at this stage as there was no dispute with regard to the deduction of TDS under the head “professional charges