“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)

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5434/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

made to DCP under section 194C of the Act. Thus, the AO held the appellant as 'assessee in default within the meaning of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and raised demands accordingly. Therefore, in order to decidethe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, it is imperative ... thereon, has considerable persuasive value since it is not only the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra) but also a subsequent amendment in section 201(1) where a proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 where a person would not be in default in case the payee has (i) furnished his return

M3M India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5433/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5432/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

M3M India Pvt.Ltd., Gurgoan vs. JCIT OSD TDS Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 5431/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

Himachal Mitra Mandal Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(3), Mummbai

ITA 9059/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sofiya Shanmugam &For Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Noida in relation to order dated 31/03/2021 passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. While dealing with the applicability in Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act read ... with Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, the Tribunal held that the Assessee was not a bank but merely a credit cooperative society. Therefore, we set aside the Order, dated 06/10/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Rs.1,50,000/-. Consequently, the Ld. AO raised a demand for short deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- under section 201(1) of the Act, along with interest of Rs.1,02,600/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8285/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

M/S Sugee Ten Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika, Pithampur vs. ITO, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 494/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Chief Municipal Officer, Acit (Tds) Nagar Palika, Opposite Indore बनाम/ Bajaj Tempo, Sector No.1 Vs. Pithampur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Tan: Bplc01981A Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 251

facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO under section 201(1)/201(1A) which is contrary to the material on records and provisions of the Act, unjust and bad in law. 2. On the facts ... facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) for short deduction of TDS u/s 194J for an amount of Rs. 4,36,013. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and in doing so, has sought to substitute his opinion with the order under Section 201(1)/201(1a) passed after undertaking extensive and detailed consideration of the issue by the ITO (TDS). 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and circumstances ... erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without appreciating that the order under Section 201(1)/201(1a) passed by the ITO (TDS) was unerring and in consonance with the settled principles of law. 3. BECAUSE, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 1031/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nimashri K.A., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

that there was no actual loss of revenue, as the tax due was ultimately deposited by the assessee company & therefore the invocation of section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act is unwarranted. 7. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below and vehemently

Civil Surgeon Cum Hospital Superintandent Bhind (M.P.), Bhind vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Office, Gwalior

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 596/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Civil Surgeon Cum Hospital Superintandent Bhind (M.P.), Bhind vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Office Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 595/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Civil Surgeon Cum Hospital Superintandent Bhind (M.P.), Bhind vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Office Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 594/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Civil Surgeon Cum Hospital Superintandent Bhind, Bhind vs. Aessessing Officer TDS Office, Aayakar Bhavwan City Centre Floor First

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 589/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

DCIT, Circle-73(1), Delhi vs. Canon India Private Limited, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5588/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 201(1)

Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Nagpur’s DIN and order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070020673(1), dated 29.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires ... action holding that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on a common maintenance charges “CAM” as per the Assessing Officer section 201(1) order dated 22.03.2021; vide following lower appellate discussion, as under:- “5. Appellate Findings: 5.1 The appellant is in the business of wholesale trading of various

State Bank of India Local Head Office Chandigarh, Chandigarh vs. Addl Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 192Section 271C

travel to any place in India and not for foreign travel. Accordingly, the assessee was treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source, resulting in demand of tax and interest. Subsequently, the Addl. Commissioner

Assistant Controller F&A Directorate of Industries, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward Shimla

ITA 98/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed without adjudication on merits, primarily on the ground that there was delay in filing of the appeal and that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

same stood reflected in its returns of income. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act. 12. Without prejudice, it was argued that even assuming there was a technical default, a penalty under section 271C is not automatic

Gomti Research and Pharmachem Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1517/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Suhana T.H.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 156Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 40a

Rs.33,46,450/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act despite the Payee has fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in first proviso of section 201(1) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG ... filed by the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had complied with the conditions prescribed in section 201(1) first proviso and also complied with the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and therefore submitted that the order