← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. S A Builders and Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 296/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

offered the said amount to tax, then in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 1st proviso to section 201(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, no disallowance is called for u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Even Page

S A Builders & Developers, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 258/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

offered the said amount to tax, then in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 1st proviso to section 201(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, no disallowance is called for u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Even Page

Maharaji Educational Trust, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 75(3), Delhi

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

ITA 217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanmaharaji Educational Trust, Vs. Ito, Ward 75 (3), H-1, Sector 12, Pratap Vihar, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar – 201 009 (Up). (Pan : Aaatm5225F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 21.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Assessing Officer Passed The Order Ex-Parte By Observing In Para 5 Of Assessment Order That Neither Any Reply Received Nor Anybody Appeared On 19.08.2019. Further He Submitted That Verification Notice U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Was Issued On 18.09.2019 To Reply By 25.09.2019. Neither Any Reply Was Received Nor Anybody Appeared On 25.09.2019. He Further Submitted That Assessing Officer After Issuing Various Notices Observed That Neither Any Reply

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI

Tc Tours Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) (OSD) Circle 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1253/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Tc Tours Limited Ito (Tds) (Osd) Circle 2(3), 1St Floor, Thomascook Building, D. N. Mumbai Vs. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aabct5333R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal A/W. Ms. Pratiksha Jain : Shri. Ajit Pal Singh, Sr. Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Challenges The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)-11, Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2021-22. Ita No. 1253/Mum/2025; (Assessment Year: 2021-22) 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Attention That The Assessee Had Physically Filed The Appeal On 21.02.2025 & Subsequently E-Filed Again On 24.02.2025. It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Assigned Two Numbers I.E., Ita No. 1187/Mum/2025 & 1253/Mum/2024 & Is Listed On Same Date I.E., 16.04.2025. The

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal a/w. Ms
Section 133ASection 194Section 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM AND

Ponnam Bhavani, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 201Section 201(1)

learned AR has submitted that once the seller of the property offered the income to tax then, as per the 1st proviso to section 201(1), the assessee shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default. Hence, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing ... stated that the seller of the property has offered the capital gain to tax and therefore, in view of the 1st proviso to section 201 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee may not be held as assessee in default. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances and the reasons