“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)

Vijaya Bank, Belagavi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 1, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 208/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.207 To 209/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2014-15 Vijaya Bank, Vs. Ito, Tds, Ward-1, Tilakwadi Branch, Belagavi, Belagavi. Karnataka – 590001. Pan : Aaacv4791J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : P.G. G. & Co. Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 14.03.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.207/Pan/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: P.G. G. & CoFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 10Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Vijaya Bank, Belagavi vs. ITO, TDS, Ward - 1, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 207/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: P.G. G. & CoFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 10Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Indian Standard Loan Trust Xliii, Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS)1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2258/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Seth, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

rate of 30% should have been deducted and therefore, assessee is in default for ₹2,10,42,807/- under Section 201(1) of the Act. The consequent interest u/s 201 (1A) of The Act of ₹61,06,232/- was made resulting into total demand

Indian Standard Loan Trust Xliii, Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS)1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2257/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Seth, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 127/JODH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Section 206CSection 5

thereby provided the limitation of 2 years and 4 years respectively in specific cases for passing the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Having regard to the binding precedents as well as amended provisions of the Act, the impugned order passed by the AO is barred ... after 4 years from the end of the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, Tribunal held that the impugned order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipu

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

ITA 126/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Section 206CSection 5

Sarda Devi Chechani, Udaipur vs. ITO TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 125/JODH/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Section 206CSection 5

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 337/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH (At e- Court, Pune) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 272/NAG/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH (At e- Court, Pune) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 271/NAG/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH (At e- Court, Pune) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 270/NAG/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH (At e- Court, Pune) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA

Bank of India, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 269/NAG/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH (At e- Court, Pune) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA

M/S. Arrone Ceramic, at Vaghasiya, Taluka Wakaner vs. The JCIT TDS Range, Rajkot

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 194ISection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

without giving us adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. The learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in not considering the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in upheld in the imposition of penalty u/s.271C even though

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

ITO, Ward-77(3), New Delhi vs. Silverglades Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 194CSection 2Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 3(3)(ii)

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 04.02.2023 arising from the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2014-15. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee ... consonance with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that imposition of demand of Rs.45,83,959/- computed under Section 201(1) of the Act and consequential interest of Rs.41,53,863/- under Section 201(1A) of the Act aggregating to Rs.87,37,822/- for the Assessment Year

Shiv Kripa Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle-3

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

ITA 443/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

erred in confirming the disallowance made by Id.AO by ignoring the fact since the assessee is not in default within the meaning of section 201(1) for the year under consideration, therefore no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made. It is submitted that both the provisos to section ... corresponding assessment year is AY 2014-15. 8.14 Accordingly, in view of the afore-mentioned discussion, even after considering the 2nd proviso to section 201(1) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction towards interest paid to M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd. in the impugned

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR

Section 271C

assessee dutifully proved that the recipients have filed returns of income therefore assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that the assessee has not disputed the payment of interest u/s 201

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR

Section 271C

Gardenia Shelters Private Limited., Noida vs. ACIT TDS Circle-74(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 978/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 201(1)

Appeals), Delhi-38 (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 12.12.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2009-10. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee

Khojema Ali Bohra, Udaipur vs. ITO (TDS), Udaipur

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

ITA 145/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 206A

Delhi dated 26.08.2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 16.03.2021 passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) read with sections 194A of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (TDS), Udaipur. 2 Khojema Ali Bohra 2. The assessee