← 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)

DCIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Mutual Benifit Corp. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee/respondent are dismissed

ITA 684/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.683/लखनऊ /2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-I, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko Co No. 10/Lkw/2004 (A.Y. 1996-97) In Ita No. 683/Lkw/2000 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd.) 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-I, Lucknow आअसं.684/ लखनऊ/2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Earlier Sahara India Mutal Benefit Ltd.) 2A Sahara India Sadan, Sakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcs-6118-F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 201(1)Section 260ASection 271C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ए”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

DCIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Mutual Benifit Corp. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee/respondent are dismissed

ITA 683/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.683/लखनऊ /2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-I, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko Co No. 10/Lkw/2004 (A.Y. 1996-97) In Ita No. 683/Lkw/2000 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd.) 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-I, Lucknow आअसं.684/ लखनऊ/2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Earlier Sahara India Mutal Benefit Ltd.) 2A Sahara India Sadan, Sakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcs-6118-F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 201(1)Section 260ASection 271C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ए”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

State Bank of India Linking Road, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax-TDS2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2886/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2887/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) State Bank Of India Administrative Officer West Mumbai Branch B Wing, Lic Complex, 1St Floor, Jeevan Seva Annex Building, S. V. Road, Santracruz (W.), Mumbai- 400054 V/S. बनाम Acit-Tds 2(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8577K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2886/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) State Bank Of India, Linking Road Branch, Plot No. 533, Patwardhan House, Bandra West, Mumbai-400052 V/S. बनाम Acit-Tds 2(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8577K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri Ninad Patade राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui
Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 250

directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and hence it cannot be considered as an 'assessee in default' in terms of section 201(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Appellant itself in terms of the Affidavit filed with the Hon'ble Madras High Court pointed