“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)

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 331/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

Infoobjects Software India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the payee referred to in the said proviso.” Proviso of section 201(1)- “Any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with ... said expenditure. vi. Hence, we would like to conclude by stating that as per the proviso of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 201(1) of the Act, if deductee has taken into account the corresponding income and has paid the tax due on the such income, then, assessee

Stete Bank of India, Smeccc Code-5030, Kanpur vs. ITO (TDS)-, Kanpur

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

ITA 391/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

assessee are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2023 “1. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in not holding that the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation and hence, void ab initio. Page 1 of 12 I.T.A. No.390 & 391/Lkw/2023 ... appeal is without prejudice to the other.” I.T.A. No.391/Lkw/2023 “1. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in not holding that the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation and hence, void ab initio. 2. That the Learned

State Bank of India, Smeccc-Code-5030, Kanpur vs. ITO(TDS)-2, Kanpur

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

ITA 390/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

Ruparel Developers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5925/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: 15.04.2025

Section 132Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

view that the assessee has prima facie committed default in deduction of TDS. Therefore, the AO initiated proceedings by issue of notice under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act. During the proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has made payments towards interest to its sister concerns ... prejudice the assessee obtained a certificate from an accountant in Form 26A, (as per Rule 31ACB) as mentioned in the first proviso to Section 201(1) where in it is certified that the recipient in question has filed their income tax returns under section 139, considering the specified

Gokhale Constructions, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Pune

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

ITA 1372/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45

erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of DCIT(TDS) in treating the assesse in default within the meaning of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for not deducting tax u/s 194(IC) in respect of payments made under various Joint Development agreements without ... erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of DCIT(TDS) in treating the assesse in default within the meaning of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for not deducting tax u/s 194(IC) in respect of payments made under the various Joint Development agreements

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. Telekom Malaysia Behard, Malaysia

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2432/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Manju Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9

resident company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia. The Company is engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services. Proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act in the case of Vodafone South Limited (“VSL') were initiated

Shri Trust T 2018, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6190/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalshri Trust T 2018, Universal Insurance Building, Ground Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aauts1169E V/S

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR

Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 250(7)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2 2. The present appeal is delayed by 48 days. Along with ... income paid by the assessee to the originator, the Assessing Officer – TDS (“AO-TDS”) vide order dated 08.11.2019 passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act held that TDS was required to be deducted under section 194LBC of the Act on the amount of EIS paid

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

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

ITA 491/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

submissions. The submissions filed by the appellant are extracted below: "(a) The captioned appeal is in reference to the impugned order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 29-03-2023 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)Kanpur in respect ... deducting and depositing the TDS on LFC/LT a being paid by it to the employees of the Bank. The appeal against order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act 1961 dated 29-03-2023 filed by the appellant is still pending for disposal. (b) During the year

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

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

ITA 490/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kanpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Kanpur

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

ITA 488/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kanpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Kanpur

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

ITA 487/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

Punjab National Bank, New Shimla vs. DCIT(TDS), Panchkula

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 397/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.397/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Punjab National Dcit (Tds) Bankbramta Bhawan, Sector 2, बनाम/ Vs. Sector 1 Himachal Pradesh- Haryana. 171009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Ptlpl-2970-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Pune [Cit(A)] Dated 15-02-2024 Confirming Certain Demand Raised By Ld. Ao Against The Assessee-Bank U/S 201(1) / 201(1A) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 09-10-2018. 2. Upon Perusal Of Order Of Ld. Ao, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee Paid Interest To Certain State Government Entities Viz. Hp

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr.DR

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)_4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 3317/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

held that the assessee was liable to make good the payment of TDS which it had not deducted. Also interest under Section 201(1)(A) of the Act was levied. The Appeal before the Commissioner was also dismissed. 9. In these circumstances, the proceedings had reached the Tribunal

Shell International Petroleum Company Limitedium, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 995/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the treatment of IT services is not in the nature of FTS and cannot be taxed in India. Ground No.25 to 27 are allowed and Ground No

ITA 2307/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)