← All Phrases

“Section 201(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 201Section 201(1)1,701 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 201(1)

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.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

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.

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).

Judgments citing Section 201(1)

Carlsberg India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Gurugram

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2834/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Tds Circle, Commercial Complex, Gurugram. D-4, Saket, New Delhi -110 017. Pan : Aajcs8454J

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chhabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Gls Infratech Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, TDS Ward- 74(3), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1822/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 1822/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 M/S Gls Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), 707, 7Th Floor, Jmd Pacific Square, Ward-74(3), Sector-16, Part-Ii, Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg7741H Assessee By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S In Case No. 11121/2014-15 Dated 30.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 201(1) R.W.S. 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201(1)

payment indeed attracts TDS deduction. We thus uphold both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating as the assessee in default in section 201(1) proceedings in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17/11/2025. (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant

Rakesh Gupta, Khanna vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 640/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 640/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rakesh Gupta, Vs The Dcit/Acit-Tds, House No. 64, Chandigarh. New Bank Colony, Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agnpk8978Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 Physical Hearing

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Trehan Promoters & Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 76(4) TDS, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2058/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pushdeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Narmadasagar Agriseeds Private Limited, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward, TDS, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 613/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnarmadasagar Agriseeds The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Private Limited, Ward,Tds 45/46 Gidc, Gandhinagar. Motipura Himatnagar, Sabarkantha, Gujarat-383001. [Pan :Aaacn5398 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

their return of income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 and offered such income for tax, and accordingly, as per the provision of section 201(1), such amount cannot be recovered from the appellant. 3. Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

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

learned Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1). Mumbai (TDS officer') erred in treating the Appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions. The learned JCIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned ... Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TDS officer erred in levying demand under section 201(1) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has already deducted and deposited TDS in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. Requiring

Wind World Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5552/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR
Section 133B(2)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

During the course of verification, the AO noticed certain TDS non-compliance and accordingly issued a notice as to why the provisions of Section 201(1)/(1A) cannot be applied. The assessee filed details vide letter dated 12.12.2022. The AO based on the details submitted noticed that in the following

Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2455/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) in support of its argument, and also relied upon the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act to state that it is not an assessee default. Form No. 26A was also submitted with respect to the transactions

Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2454/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC) in support of its argument, and also relied upon the proviso to section 201(1) of the Act to state that it is not an assessee default. Form No. 26A was also submitted with respect to the transactions

Pravin Prakash Magar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- Ward 4, Panvel, Maharashtra

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

ITA 5118/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Pravin Prakash Magar Cit(Appeals) Ward 4, Panvel B 106 Pratiksha Chs Plot No. 55, Panvel, Maharashtra 410206 Vs. Sec 15, Koper Khairne, Kopar Khairne S.O., Mumbai 400709 Pan No. Bpapm1266A Appellant Respondent : Shri.Pravin Magar (Assessee In Person) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appear) Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 Date Of : 03/11/2025 Pronouncement Order Per Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 16.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] For Ay 2024-25 In Relation To Order U/S. 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short The ‘Act’] Passed By The Ao For Short Deduction Of Tax At Source On Payment Made For Purchase Of Property From Non-Resident Indian. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Respondent: Shri.Pravin Magar (
Section 195Section 197Section 200ASection 201Section 201(1)

filed their returns of income in India, disclosed the relevant capital gains to tax, , thereby fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to section 201(1); as such, the “appellant” could not be treated as an assessee-in default. 4. BECAUSE the “CIT(A)” has erred in upholding the levy ... provided a specific opportunity to furnish Form 26A as required under Rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules and proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, the adverse inference drawn and dismissal of the appeal are unjustified. The appellant was willing to furnish the said certificate

Cogent Realtors Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1657/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

Section 133A(2)Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Cogent Realtors Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1656/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

Section 133A(2)Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

S Sohan Singh Joginder Singh & Co., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 897/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR

Celebrity Realcon (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-49(3), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3706/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandracelebrity Realcon (P) Ltd. Vs Ito 10, New Rajdhani Enclave, Ward 49(3), Delhi Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 Pan: Aadcc8384M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Adv, Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 Order

Section 194Section 194ASection 194ISection 201(1)

1 Celebrity Relcon (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE