“Section 201(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 201Section 201(2)28 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 201(2) is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 201(2)

Kourani v. Union OF India

83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court

1,708

citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI

289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court

844

citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT

74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT

465

citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India

63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court

397

citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.

377 ITR 635 · 2015 · High Court

369

citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

137 (Guj.) IV. Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI

115 Taxmann.com 345 · 2020 · High Court

178

citing judgments

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the levy of fees under Section 234E and penalties under Section 271H, finding the charging provision to be Section 234E, with the power to levy existing from 01/07/2012.

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.

140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court

172

citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

Judgments citing Section 201(2)

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

will not be a charge on the property under attachment to be discharged by the custodian, however, contrary to the said provision, section 201(2) of the Income-tax Act specifically provides that the TDS either not deducted or not deposited in time along with interest thereon, shall

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

Turner Morrison Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)

prosecution are subject to the defence of 'reasonable cause' as provided in Sections 273B and 278AA of the Act respectively. 9. Importantly, Section 201(2), provides that where a person who, although required to, does not deduct tax 23 or does not pay the tax deducted at source or after

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dz Bank, India Representative Dcit (International Taxation) Office C/O Srbc & Associates Llp, Range-2(1)(2), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1612, Air Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd 6455 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

upto the date on which such tax is actually paid to the Central Government. tax is actually paid to the Central Government. Section Section 201(2) of the Act further provides that till the TDS amount of the Act further provides that till the TDS amount of the Act further

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1814/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1813/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee to the extent of the recalled grounds, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1812/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala/Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Somendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian News Paper Society, New Delhi

ITA 116/DEL/2017[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Garg, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

above for which no reasonable cause could be furnished , therefore, the deductor company was treated as assessee in default under section 201(2) of the I.T. Act. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. CIT(A) following the reasoning in his two appellate orders in assessment year